New Lewis & Curry Study Concludes Climate Sensitivity is Low

April 24th, 2018 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

Global warming “problem” cut by 50%

As readers here are aware, I don’t usually critique published climate papers unless they are especially important to the climate debate. Too many papers are either not that important, or not that convincing to me.

The holy grail of the climate debate is equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS): just how much warming (and thus associated climate change) will occur in response to an eventual doubling of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere?

It is an extension of a previously published paper by Lewis & Curry, adding more data, and addressing criticisms of their earlier work. Its methodology isn’t entirely original, since previous (but somewhat preliminary) work along the same lines (Otto et al., 2013) has resulted in observational estimates of relatively low climate sensitivity compared to the IPCC climate models.

But what is notable to me is (1) the comprehensive extent to which methodological and data uncertainties have been addressed, and (2) the fact it was published in the relatively mainstream and consensus-defending Journal of Climate.

Basically, the paper concludes that the amount of surface and deep-ocean warming that has occurred since the mid- to late-1800s is consistent with low equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) to an assumed doubling of atmospheric CO2. They get a median estimate of 1.66 deg. C (1.50 deg. C without uncertain infilled Arctic data), which is only about half of the average of the IPCC climate models. It is just within the oft-quoted range of 1.5 to 4.5 deg. C that the IPCC has high confidence ECS should occupy.

The last I knew, Lewis’s belief is that the biggest uncertainty in the ECS calculation is how accurate the assumed forcings are that must be used to make the ECS computation (over the last ~130 years, the climate system has stored a certain amount of extra energy in the ocean, and shed a certain amount of energy to space from increased surface temperatures, in response to assumed changes in radiative forcing…. a big uncertainty in which is assumed anthropogenic aerosol-related cooling).

I’d like to additionally emphasize overlooked (and possibly unquantifiable) uncertainties: (1) the assumption in studies like this that the climate system was in energy balance in the late 1800s in terms of deep ocean temperatures; and (2) that we know the change in radiative forcing that has occurred since the late 1800s, which would mean we would have to know the extent to which the system was in energy balance back then.

We have no good reason to assume the climate system is ever in energy balance, although it is constantly readjusting to seek that balance. For example, the historical temperature (and proxy) record suggests the climate system was still emerging from the Little Ice Age in the late 1800s. The oceans are a nonlinear dynamical system, capable of their own unforced chaotic changes on century to millennial time scales, that can in turn alter atmospheric circulation patterns, thus clouds, thus the global energy balance. For some reason, modelers sweep this possibility under the rug (partly because they don’t know how to model unknowns).

But just because we don’t know the extent to which this has occurred in the past doesn’t mean we can go ahead and assume it never occurs.

Or at least if modelers assume it doesn’t occur, they should state that up front.

If indeed some of the warming since the late 1800s was natural, the ECS would be even lower.

Now the question is: At what point will the IPCC (or, maybe I should say climate modelers) start recognizing that their models are probably too sensitive? Remember, the sensitivity of their models is NOT the result of basic physics, as some folks claim… it’s the result of very uncertain parameterizations (e.g. clouds) and assumptions (e.g. precipitation efficiency effects on the atmospheric water vapor profile and thus feedback). The models are adjusted to produce warming estimates that “look about right” to the modelers. Yes, *some* amount of warming from increasing CO2 is reasonable from basic physics. But just how much warming is open to manipulation within the uncertain portions of the models.

Maybe it’s time for the modelers to change their opinion of how much warming “looks about right”.

Here again we see the 100% faulty and clearly default position of so many otherwise nominally skeptical scientists that it is CO2 that warms the ocean.

The increasing outgoing longwave radiation and change in temperature over time that are used to determine “climate sensitivity” were in reality driven by strong sunlight penetrating into the tropics, energy that spread out into the ocean, causing net warming, when solar activity was high.

yes, there are many possibilities. But there seems to be pretty good observational evidence of a warming trend during the 1800s (natural, since we couldn’t be at fault), whereas a recent natural cooling influence is more speculative. If anything, recent evidence suggests the anthropogenic aerosol cooling effect since the 1940s or so in the models (and used in this study) has been over-specified.

This is inherently our side’s problem with an estimated ECS as high as 1.6C (and 1.6C is very high sensitivity by my standards). It’s too high to effectively make the case that there is no significant risk of higher sensitivity and thus no need for action.

–RW says:
April 24, 2018 at 4:24 PM
This is inherently our sides problem with an estimated ECS as high as 1.6C (and 1.6C is very high sensitivity by my standards). Its too high to effectively make the case that there is no significant risk of higher sensitivity and thus no need for action.–

There no need for action if it was 5 C rather than 1.6 C or
less.
And if there was any need for action, one would not get governments “doing the action”.
Governments are most useful if you want a lack of action.
Governments are dumber than bricks.
Governments are most famous for oppressing people.
International governments are the worse government.
The U.N. has very horrible governments as member it’s states, and there is not any very good governments on this planet.

So in an average group of bad, UN has selected some really bad governments as part of its membership. A couple nation out law it’s citizens to leave the prison planatation. Other support terrorism, and larger number governments like to deny there is terrorism.
Or very incompetent of doing anything vaguely useful.

And I don’t any one here knows what Earth would like if it wasn’t in an icebox climate.
Probably more half don’t know we are in icebox climate, or can define what an icebox climate actually is.

It is Earth, having a cold ocean and permanent ice caps.
Which we have been in well before humans could farm or have cities, and since about time, when primitive human began to walk. More than a million years and going thru dozens of glacial and interglacial periods.

To leave, one needs a cold ocean to warm so it is warmer than 5 C.
And currently it’s about 3.5 C and it going to stay about 3.5 C for at least a few centuries and probably for more than a thousand years.

Currently, average land temperature is 10 C, and average ocean surface temperature is about 17 C.

If entire ocean warms by .5 C (goes from 3.5 to 4 C) the average ocean temperature will warm by a couple degrees (17 to 19 C) and ocean will warm more cold land areas, which result increasing the 10 C average land temperature, say from 10 to 15 C.
Or the land living humans will then live in lands which have a average temperature of 15 C (that you mistakenly thought you living when Earth had average global temperature 15 C). 15 C is still pretty cold for any tropical creature, like the human. Or most human will, if given the choice, heat their house so it has a higher temperature than 15 C (59 F).

Anyhow in perhaps many centuries when average land is about 15 C one will still have the homeless freezing to death, and their will homeless, because governments will still be incompetent (and still, naturally, evil).

What I find most amusing about your comment is that a calculated number, ECS, based on a “SIMULATION,” not on a model, has meaning at all. The climate is NOT “modeled” in any way as there are too many factors unknown and not well understood, to model. We are ignorant of the majority of what drives the climate. these are “Sim Climate” games, just like Sim City or Sim Farm. They can approximate, but they cannot duplicate since they are based on too little real knowledge. I would no more run a farm based on what I could do in Sim Farm than would I expect the planet to do based on what is produced by Sim Climate. The average person recognizes that programs do what they are told, and simulations don’t generate reality. These models are treated like they are real tools, not toys, and that is where this whole debate makes the wrong turn.

I would say the more obvious effect is spurious UHI warming on land-based thermometers, which is strongest at low population densities. This effect is easily seen in everyone’s car thermometers now as they commute in and out of towns, but there is no easy way to quantify the effect on “global warming” measurements over, say, the last 100 years.

The global temperature changes only to a small extent. However, a change in circulation can cause locally significant cooling in medium latitudes. The pattern of winter circulation in high latitudes is determined in the stratosphere depending on the solar activity and the geomagnetic field.

“Stratospheric Intrusions are when stratospheric air dynamically decends into the troposphere and may reach the surface, bringing with it high concentrations of ozone which may be harmful to some people. Stratospheric Intrusions are identified by very low tropopause heights, low heights of the 2 potential vorticity unit (PVU) surface, very low relative and specific humidity concentrations, and high concentrations of ozone. Stratospheric Intrusions commonly follow strong cold fronts and can extend across multiple states.
Stratospheric Intrusions are more common in the winter/spring months and are more frequent during La Nina periods.”
This means that a weak stratospheric polar vortex makes Stratospheric Intrusions dangerous.

CO2 insulates radiatively, that is, it slows that rate of IR radiative tranfer of energy between objects of warmer temperature and colder temperature. The net effect energetically (that is, the effect on the energy budget of a system containing differing temperatures) is similar to materials that insulate conductively.

Yes, the radiative physics are considered rather “basic”. Kind of like sunlight as a source of energy is rather basic.

But it’s really the success of the underlying equations that have been successfully used to describe nature we should be discussing, rather than imprecise concepts like “insulation”.

CO2 can absorb infrared. CO2 can emit infrared. That is not disputed. What is disputed is whether atmospheric CO2 can warm the surface.

If you have “underlying equations” that show how CO2 can raise the temperature of the surface, please share.

************

Oh, I’ll do better than that. In 2016 I posted a spreadsheet with a simple 1-layer atmosphere time-dependent model where the atmospheric infrared absorptivity and emissivity are equal. If you increase the IR absorptivity value, the atmospheric and surface temperature go up. If you decrease the value, they go down. The relevant equations are found many places, or inferred from the spreadsheet cells…but I’m not going to do your homework for you. (here’s one example, see the equations in section 7.3.2, basically what is implemented in my spreadsheet: http://acmg.seas.harvard.edu/people/faculty/djj/book/bookchap7.html ).

Where people typically mess up is assuming that just because the IR absorptivity and emissivity are the same, that the atmosphere emits IR at the same rate as it absorbs. WRONG. The rate of emission is very temperature-dependent (going as the 4th power of temperature in K), while the rate of absorption isn’t. So, if you had a very cold sample of CO2 in an enclosure and irradiated with concentrated IR radiation in the bands where CO2 absorbs, the gas would warm (its total absorption would be greater than its emission, the latter being low until the gas warmed up).

Actually, G*e*r*a*n, when you say “CO2 can absorb infrared. CO2 can emit infrared.”, you have already conceded the “greenhouse effect” exists. You just don’t realize it yet.

Well, we disagree on a “model” being “better” than the “underlying equations” that you mentioned. But, it gets worse. The spreadsheet model is based on “assumed” values from pseudoscience. So, you start with pseudoscience, and end with pseudoscience. Most would not consider that progress.

Can we get back to the “basic physics” you bragged about? How does atmospheric CO2 raise the temperature of the surface? Surely, you can answer that in your own words, without links, models, etc.

Actually, G*e*r*a*n, when you say “CO2 can absorb infrared. CO2 can emit infrared”, you have already conceded the “greenhouse effect” exists. You just dont realize it yet.

Dr. Roy, are you now saying that matter, absorbing and emitting infrared, adds heat energy to the system?

**********
you know, this is the kind of behavior that got you banned in the first place. You try to trap me into agreeing to imprecise language, where you then decide what the language means *to you*. You know very well (or should know) that a temperature increase is either the result of (1) increasing energy input, or (2) reducing energy output. This is true of everything I can think of. To answer your question, more CO2 does not, strictly speaking, “add heat energy to the system”, it instead reduces the rate of energy loss. EITHER ONE INCREASES TEMPERATURE. If you insist on playing word games, I will have to once again waste my time in keeping you from posting here and confusing people. I posted the link with the relevant equations, and I resent you claiming I’m using some sort of pseudoscience.
-Roy

Readers looking for entertainment will miss anger’s unique brand of climate comedy, but second-time loser anger will have added time to come up with more aliases, play with toy trains and quite possibly discover the locomotive really does rotate once on its axis per orbit on that circular track of anger’s creation. Then apply that new-found knowledge to find the moon does similarly rotate. But I remain doubtful.

“Just adding “net” energy to a system does NOT guarantee an increase temperature.”

anger then decides what the language really means *to anger*. anger never did have much respect for the 1LOT. This kind of comedy entertainment will be sorely missed once anger joins the departed 2nd time around.

You’re driving me crazy about this! Yes, the rectangle you reference is rotating around an external point (O), and yes that’s an orbital motion.

In doing so, the diagram is pointing out that all four corners of the rectangle (a,b,c and d) are creating concentric circles (all have a common center), unlike what would be the case if the rectangle was not rotating about it’s own axis.

Notice a,b,c and d relative to the rectangle’s center of mass.
After 1/2 an orbit, (a) will be to the bottom right of the rectangle’s center and (d) will be to the upper left, opposite of where they started.

These four corners are therefore circling point 0 and simultaneously rotating around the rectangle’s center of mass. Two motions at the same time.

Not sure how Im driving you crazy, Snape, as I havent mentioned it in months. And no, obviously the rectangle is not rotating on its axis, since that isnt possible (theres a rod there connecting it to O).

Walk around a circular track with your arms or body strapped to a long metal rod, which leads to the centre of the circle and a central pole which it attaches to (but can move around it). You are no longer free to rotate on your axis (turn around on the spot), but you can still walk around in a circle always following the track. You literally cant be rotating on your axis as you walk around. Sure, you can have a compass on your head if you want. Makes no difference, you are not rotating on your axis as you walk around the track, since you are not free to do so, you are bound to the metal rod.

Glad we agree then, Snape. If you are not free to rotate on your axis, and you are moving, you are not rotating on your axis whilst you move. You are welcome to call it synchronous rotation if you wish. The rotation is about point O, though, the centre of the circle. There is no rotation about an axis where there is no freedom of movement, so you are not rotating on YOUR axis. But if you insist on seeing it the wrong way, by all means, do. Agree to disagree, forever.

The compass does indeed perform one rotation relative to the compass needle. However, when walking around the circular track, that rotation is about the fixed axis O in the centre of the track. It is not the result of a rotation on YOUR axis.

Both the compass and the compass needle are orbiting the 0, halp. But in doing so , the compass makes a rotation relative to the needle. The axis of this rotation is the compass center, which follows the compass wherever it goes.

S: Thats an interesting way of demonstrating a lack of axial rotation (as seen in the diagram you referenced).

J: The diagram and accompanying text did indeed stress the point of not confusing curvilinear translation with rotation. Yes, when walking around a track normally you are rotating. You are rotating about point O, though, not rotating on your axis.

J: The compass is rotating about point O, since its on your head, and YOU are rotating about point O. That a compass needle always points north doesnt suddenly mean you are rotating on your axis, instead of rotating about point O.

g*r…”Dr. Roy, Im not guilty of any of your accusations. When you provide a spreadsheet that is based on assumptions of pseudoscience, then you have to be responsible for peddling pseudoscience”.

*************

We need to get together with Roy for a beer and straighten him out. Nothing ever comes across well in blogs, emails, or even by telephone. People need direct people communication.

We skeptics, lukewarm or otherwise, should not be squabbling among ourselves. I think we could all agree that Roy is doing a damn fine job even though he forgets himself at times and comes across like the Soup Nazi on Seinfeld. ☺ Not nearly like Gavin Schmidt or our friend at WUWT, who tends to show a low intolerance level for dissent.

I have felt like going at Roy a few times on his physics, I could not give a hoot if I’m banned. What stops me is the bigger picture. Roy and John at UAH are doing a damned fine job and I don’t want to get Roy into a debate that may prove damaging to that end.

Your tidal locking diagram is useful, thanks. The tidally-locked moon (moon on the left) is rotating about a point in the middle of the circle (call it point O) just as the rectangle in fig. 15.4(b) is rotating about point O, the fixed axis in that diagram. All you need to complete the comparison is to understand that gravity, and the shape of the moon, add up to the tidal locking mechanism which effectively holds the moon in place (prevents it from free rotation on its axis) just as the rod between point O and the rectangle in 15.4(b) prevents the rectangle from free rotation on its axis, as it rotates (orbits) about point O.

You are allowing your brain to fool you, just as it does when you think the Sun rises in the morning, or when you delude yourself into believing the planet is warming catastrophically.

Rotation about an axis requires local angular momentum and with a tidally-locked Moon there can be no local angular momentum.

The diagram at the link you provide has sped up the orbital motion to give the illusion of rotation about a local axis and there is none. If you slowed the orbit down to an approximation of it’s orbital speed of the Earth you’d see no apparent rotation.

To recreate the effect of tidal-locking you would need to have a rigid member connecting the Moon on its tidally-locked face to the Earth, with the Earth rotating at the same speed. With such a member in place the Moon could not rotate on a local axis but it would still give the illusion of rotation from the perspective of the Sun.

You are being fooled by the fact that the Earth can rotate inside its gravitational field. That field keeps the Moon tidally-locked while the Earth rotates inside. The diagram’s claim that the Moon completes one orbit of the Earth in the same time it completes one rotation on it’s axis is simply wrong.

WRT to the Earth, the Moon does not rotate at all since one face is locked to the Earth side. It should be plain to you that the Moon is not rotating about a local axis, nor is it rotating about any axis. It’s locked in an orbit of the Earth with one face constantly pointed to the Earth.

H: “Snape, I already fully 100% understand what you are arguing. I absolutely can see it from your point of view. Theres nothing you are saying which I dont get. And I still disagree, and always will.”

“CO2 is NOT a thermodynamic heat source. That means it can NOT increase the temperature of the system. ”

Is urban heat island effect a thermodynamic heat source?
UHI effect is something very easily measured.
You could argue that UHI effect is only due to the many heat sources in urban environment (cars,living people, home heating, etc) and such heat sources are considered to be small part of UNI effect, but would you argue it is the sole cause of UHI effect?I
Or having weather station surrounded by asphalt does not effect the measuring of air temperature?

Insulation in a home slow down heat loss by conduction, it has virtually no effect on radiation. CO2 in the atmosphere has absolutely no effect on heat loss by conduction or convection and virtually no effect on radiation.

It’s a myth that CO2 at 0.04% can trap heat or radiation.

The GHE is a seriously bad piece of science. It need to be re-visited to see what is really causing atmospheric warming.

The climate doesn’t have a constant rate of energy input. We literally live within the sun’s TSI range, small as it is, having profound implications over time.

The sun’s warming/cooling effect on the ocean is accumulative depending on the variable amount of energy received over time, tied directly to the solar cycle.

My solar warming/cooling threshold was first established by calculating an average solar activity level over 26 years, over two solar cycles. From there I went on to make several good predictions using solely solar activity as described in my poster linked above.

The right assumption underlying the success of my work is that volcanic eruptions, clouds, aerosols, and CO2 concentration effectively didn’t matter over that 26 year period to ocean warming/cooling compared to solar activity

The implication is aerosols aren’t so effective at cooling compared to the reduction in TSI over time, as we’re seeing now, and generally see during every solar minimum.

The ocean is constantly losing heat to the air only to be replenished by sunlight. The energy in that sunlight over time is what matters. Replenishment occurs faster under high TSI.

My work describes how TSI drove the 2015/16 El Nino, and how a nominal SST solar sensitivity of 0.5C/W/yr was derived.

Climate science needs to get real by dropping the “ocean warms from CO2” premise.

Mr. Weber, you’ll need also to include (1) the solar system’s vertical oscillation through the galactic mid plane’s varying dust and dark matter, and (2) terrestrial and oceanic volcanism with associated geomagnetic reversals; otherwise, you may still be leaning toward “weather” instead of “climate”.

The fact is that the ENSO followed my solar thresholds to within days, and there is no evidence air is warming the ocean.

The 2015/2016 ENSO peaked after the 2015 TSI peak. Ocean heat content maximized and then released its heat into the air, making the air warmer, hence the temporary record high air temperatures following the ENSO.

Since then the ocean cooled, and is still cooling, but CO2 is still high.

Where is the AGW CO2-retained heat now?

The warm air produced by the ENSO has not maintained the temperature in the ocean or the air, as evidenced by simultaneous La Nina conditions, and record cold NH winter temperatures.

AGW CO2 has not warmed the ocean or air since the 2015/16 peak, since it cannot, as there isn’t enough CO2 even if it held heat could warm the ocean according to AGW theory.

When using the sunspot number one must remember there is up to a 120 day lag in TSI from that sunspot activity, according to the cross-correlation of daily v2 SSN & SORCE TSI.

The second sunspot peak of SC24 was in Oct 2014, followed by the solar cycle TSI peak 4 months later in Feb-March 2015.

Although smoothed numbers do have a purpose, they aren’t temporally correct as far as being pegged in time at the actual real sunspot peak, and they don’t reflect the real magnitude of the actual sunspot peak, it’s lagged TSI effect, making them a less accurate indicator of the solar-climate impact.

The lag is important for understanding the climate impact of sunspot peaks on ENSO development during any solar cycle.

Your prior comment referred to the low solar cycle compared to others going back to the Dalton minimum using smoothed SSNs, and you used April 2014 as the smoothed SSN peak.

I addressed it as if you were perhaps challenging my mention of the 2015 TSI peak, so my comment was intended to clarify the temporal relationship between SSN and TSI peaks, and how that relates to smoothed SSNs.

If you meant ‘this cycle is so low so how did it get so hot?’ you should have stated it more clearly.

The smoothed SSNs don’t reveal the sunspot peak was high enough for TSI to exceed the warming threshold of 1361.25 W/m2 in SORCE TSI. For that the actual SSN needs to exceed 95 nominally, which it did in SC24.

The lesson here is all solar cycles since the Dalton minimum reached and surpassed the sunspot number solar warming threshold, including this weak SC24, making it the simplest and most logical explanation for the warming since then.

That is actually shown in my poster linked above in Fig. 21.

A smoothed SSN equivalent warming threshold would be a more vague and less useful indice, and unnecessary.

“If you meant this cycle is so low so how did it get so hot? you should have stated it more clearly.”

Yes, that’s what I meant. Sorry for not being clear.

**********

“The lesson here is all solar cycles since the Dalton minimum reached and surpassed the sunspot number solar warming threshold, including this weak SC24, making it the simplest and most logical explanation for the warming since then.”

All else being equal, I of course agree that an increase in solar output means higher earth temperature. How much warming, though, is what’s relevant. According to Dr. Spencer (and other scientists who have studied the issue), it’s not much.

Insolation is the incoming solar radiation. ASR is the solar HEAT, that part of the insolation (or irradiance) which is actually ABSORBED by the Earth system.

This distinction is all-important when it comes to thermodynamics and thermal effects.

(…) where is the solar activity link to ASR?

There is no first-order link between ASR and solar activity. ASR is mainly determined by Earth’s albedo. The changes over time in TSI are miniscule compared to the changes over time in Earth’s albedo.

Solar activity has not increased since the late 70s. It has rather diminished somewhat. ASR, however, has increased significantly over that same time frame.

The increase in ASR is clearly the cause of ‘global warming’ since the 70s.

(…) it boils down to daily 1au TSI.

No. It couldn’t be. It is simply not a thermodynamic quantity. For Earth, it isn’t. TSI isn’t what warms (heats) the Earth. ASR is. The solar heat to Earth. And so a change in ASR, not TSI, is what will affect Earth’s temperature.

I am a Neuroscientist and Electrical Engineer by training, not a meteorologist/climatologist. I have nonetheless learned a lot about the issues thanks in part to your numerous lectures, testimonies to congress and the web site. Mathematical modeling and the theory of dynamical systems unites all of the sciences and this has helped me understand the issues in the area of ‘global warming/climate change’. I know all to well the strengths and pitfalls of modeling and the difficulty in producing models that involve so many variables- often stochastic – that can’t be subjected to direct experimentation. I have been particularly concerned and dismayed by so many reports of data massaging and the convenient spins put on interpretation of the data, whether manipulated or actually honest. This is very bad for science and the reputation of scientists. Indeed when all this began to come to public attention – i.e. the earth is warming and this will be very very bad for the planet- in the early 1990s, at a time I had little knowledge of the subject area, my thought was ‘they better be right or science and scientists will be ridiculed’.

In any case I have long wanted to congratulate you for your scientific rigor, level head, and good temperament.

Very true. I fear science will take a hit to credibility from exaggerating and misrepresenting climate change. The other big issue is academic and public denial of biological differences of humans due to evolution. It is ironic that the left are in denial of evolution in humanity, but they are generally more accepting of the theory (cognitive dissonance). A person can get labeled a hate word for pointing out something obvious like brain mass varies within different lineages or sexes. We are living in an oppressive time for science. Reality always emerges…. it is just a matter of time.

As i see it CO2 can only modulate the temperature on Earth a bit.
The water cycle, the clouds, and a lot of other processes work to stabilize the temperature.
Concider Mars that has 30 times more CO2 for every square meter surface, and it has only a CO2 effect of 6K relative to the pure radiation balance.

If you have an input (CO2) that has minimal influence to the total (temperature), you can get any factor you like.
I don’t know what controls the temperature on the Erath, but CO2 is not the main driver. And is the global temperature anyway so important?

It snows meters of CO2 during polar winters on Mars and the latent heat keeps poles warmer.
Or the Moon has 2 weeks of night and gets colder than 1/2 of Mars year (which longer than Earth year) of night in the polar winter.

Global warming is important because the two largest countries have average temperature of -4 C, if their average temperature could increase to say 0 C, the world could have more crop land.

The funny thing is that Appell is actually conceding here that it is in fact the BULK MASS of the atmosphere that matters when it comes to its thermal effect on the surface below, not its degree/level of IR activity.

If you took out the NON-radiative constituents of Earth’s atmosphere, you would effectively reduce its mass by ~99.5 %. It would now be made up 100 % of IR-active gases, but it would be much less massive overall than the Martian atmosphere, of whose constituents about 96 % are IR active.

IOW, you have kept all the radiative molecules of Earth’s atmosphere and removed all the non-radiative ones.

So will the temperature effect still be the same?

Of course not.

On Venus, with its amazingly massive atmospheric bulk, making it incredibly dense at the bottom, T_s is [737-231=] +506 K higher than T_e.

On Earth, with a much, much less massive atmospheric bulk, making it much less dense at the bottom, T_e and T_s is much naturally closer; the difference is down to [288-255=] +33 K.

On Mars, with an atmospheric bulk much, much less massive again than on Earth, making it exceedingly tenuous even at the bottom, there is no “GHE” as defined. T_e has simply come further down, all the way, in fact, and fallen below T_s: [203-211=] -8 K.

And yet, every single cubic metre of ‘air’ lying on top of the global Martian surface contains ~26 times as many CO2 molecules as each m^3 of air on top of Earth’s global surface.

It makes no impact in and of itself. It cannot raise the temperature just like that. By just ‘radiating back’. It NEEDS a certain bulk mass. Because the bulk mass is what holds on to the energy. Radiative properties (EMR absorp.tion, emission and scattering/reflection) do not in themselves hold on to and store up energy inside matter. They do not produce internal kinetic energy, directly associated with temperature.

Kristian, actually the bulk HEIGHT is the critical factor, not the bulk MASS. Because the bulk HEIGHT is what separates the layers of GHGs and allows the top layers to be significantly cooler than the bottom layers.

wert: you have to account for the lighter atmosphere on Mars. There are fewer molecules in the Martian atmosphere than Earth’s, so a given [CO2 in ppm] there is not the same number of molecules as the same [CO2 in ppm] on Earth.

Anyway, the “30 times” number didn’t come from me. But it’s straightforward to calculate, whatever it is.

Kristian says:The funny thing is that Appell is actually conceding here that it is in fact the BULK MASS of the atmosphere that matters when it comes to its thermal effect on the surface below, not its degree/level of IR activity.

There are NOT fewer CO2 molecules in any m^3 of Martian ‘air’ than there are in each m^3 of air on Earth. There are in fact 26 times as MANY CO2 molecules in each m^3 of air on Mars. However, there are much, much more molecules IN TOTAL in each m^3 of air on Earth than on Mars. Which makes all the difference! On Mars there’s a NEGATIVE “GHE” as defined (T_s – T_e), while on Earth it is positive. And on Venus, with a much, much more massive atmosphere than Earth’s, the T_e is forced yet much higher up off the ground. The pattern is obvious. It’s all because of the much higher atmospheric mass, pressure and density.

I haven’t calculated the CO2 numbers, but the GHE on Mars, Venus and Earth is positive. I dont see how you could conclude otherwise.

On Mars it is indeed negative, by about 8 Kelvin. The average global surface temperature of Mars (its T_s) is estimated (based on multi-year satellite measurements) to be 202-204 K, while the planet’s blackbody emission temperature in space (its T_e) is calculated to be 211 K.

You shouldn’t just go by what people CLAIM, David. You should always check the DATA for yourself.

“This can be understood by considering the greenhouse effect on Mars today which amounts to an increase of – 6 K.”

McKay et al, Nature 1991

This should give you a clue, David. It’s published in 1991 (!!), before any satellite instruments were around to determine the ACTUAL T_s of Mars. So they just GUESSED. Based on the assumption that there just has to be some kind of “GHE”. Simply because there’s so much CO2 in its atmosphere …

If I can add to Dr. Spencer’s point that we do not know how much of the warming since the mid 19th century was natural. I think it s fair to say that burning fossil fuels was not responsible for the warming to the early twentieth century.

Curiously, the population in 1900 was about one quarter of what it is now. Per capita use of hydrocarbon based energy was considerably less, and has increased by at least two and a half times.

If heat is related to human CO2 production, and all other inputs – Sun etc., remain constant, it is interesting to note that the roughly ten times increased human related heat production since 1900 apparently cannot be measured by GHE supporters.

My experience is that one cannot accumulate heat for use later on. If you heat something, say water, it starts cooling immediately the heat is withdrawn.

You may be right. Maybe CO2 has warmed the Earth by 0.1 degrees since 1900. The problem is, you cannot say whether the Earths heat energy has increased, decreased, or stayed the same. It is literally impossible to measure the value of the heat content of a body such as the Earth. Calculations are based on assumptions and guesses. So you are as likely to be wrong, as to be right.

Your calculation of the heating effect of CO2 is nonsensical, and about as well founded as the Drake equation. Increasing the amount of CO2 to 100% between a heat source and a thermometer results in a drop in the temperature of the thermometer, not a rise. The more energy ab*sorbed by the CO2, the less reaches the thermometer.

Still, 0.1 C rise in 120 odd years is not so bad. Without thermometers calibrated to at least this accuracy, nobody would even notice it, would they? Not much cause for alarm to any rational person.

So what caused the warming from 1910-1940?? Very little GHG forcing compared to today and if you look at the temperature graphs for that period and compare to the current 30 year period 1987-2017 there is only about +0.2 difference in the rate of warming! And this with a lot more GHG forcing???

Very nice… i like how u did that. Valid calculation of 0.15 C assuming 1 deg is all co2. You disregard uncertainty from natural contributions, but then add modern aerosols and say could be much higher… lets go with that. This method exemplifies how society end up with biased IPCC median models for a base case. CERN reduced the cloud albedo effect and eliminated highest end scenarios as plausible. Svensmark 2017 nature paper shows the potential for more warming from sun (natural). So these suite of models are likely exaggerated.

There doesn’t appear to be a useful GHE definition, so it cannot be quantified.

If it cannot be quantified, then taking any action whatever based on the supposed action of the GHE is pointless.

You mention “The oceans are a nonlinear dynamical system, capable of their own unforced chaotic changes on century to millennial time scales . . . “. I point out that the atmosphere also acts chaotically, making any useful assessment of any future state impossible.

I also point out that assuming that a chaotic system will follow your desires – say changing state at a slow rate – may be a poor decision indeed. The Younger Dryas event (and many others) shows the speed at which regime change can occur.

I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the effects of the undefinable and unquantifiable GHE are found to be progressively less important by its supporters, and eventually indistinguishable from zero. Face will be saved in all directions, and the Great Global Warming scare can be be safely consigned to the dustbin of minor scientific curiousities.

All part of the rich tapestry of life.

By the way, the calls for banning such as g and others (moi?), might just be the result of petty and uncertain minds, who think that censorship and suppression are essential to the search for knowledge. If words neither break your leg or pick your pocket (to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson), where’s the harm?

yeah, well, it’s well established that’s not a measure of the GHE, either. The actual surface temperature increase from the GHE would be about double what we see (Manabe & Strickler, 1964). Instead, what we see is after convective heat loss reduces the pure radiative surface temperature increase from the GHE.

But I’m sure we can come up with a definition for the GHE with words…however, it might take more than one sentence. How would one define and quantify a living cell?… yet we know they exist. The GHE is a process, not an isolated variable with specific units.

So, Mike Flynn’s demand for a “useful definition” of the GHE, I’m sure, could be constructed. It probably already has. But, still, it’s a process having certain effects….it’s not a variable or physical constant.

“So, Mike Flynns demand for a useful definition of the GHE, Im sure, could be constructed. It probably already has. But, still, its a process having certain effects.its not a variable or physical constant.”

Wishful thinking or surety is no substitute for fact.

Here’s just one definition for a cell “the smallest structural and functional unit of an organism, which is typically microscopic and consists of cytoplasm and a nucleus enclosed in a membrane.”

What usually happens at this point is that GHE supporters start arguing about the definition presented, to divert attention away from the fact that they cannot even define the GHE in any equally useful sense.

You say that the GHE is a process having certain effects. What are these effects? What natural phenomena do they explain? And so on. If the GHE is a process, it will have steps designed to achieve a particular end, surely. You cannot state them.

It seems to me that the proposition that increasing the amount of CO2 between a thermometer and the Sun makes the thermometer hotter, is in direct contradiction to such things as the radiative transfer equations, and even Tyndall’s meticulously conducted reproducible experiments.

You would no doubt like a useful description of the GHE as much as I – but alas, none such exists.

Its proponents cannot even agree n its impact, with the wonderful excuse that another imponderable effect, called natural variation, may or may not impact on the operation of the GHE, to an unknown degree!

Do you really wonder why I am unable to profess belief in something that no-one can measure, reproduce, or even describe? Ban me if you wish, but it won’t make the phantom GHE any more real.

Mike, you unwittingly made the OPPOSITE point to what you intended!
Red blood cells have no nucleus. Egg cells are not microscopic. The entire collection of prokaryotes have no nucleus. Rather that giving an example of how “good definitions” should work in science, you show that most things are more subtle than typical one-sentence definitions.

In the spirit of moving things forward, let me offer an attempt at a definition or two.

At its most basic, I would say:The “Greenhouse Effect” is the change in thermal energy balance (and hence of temperature) of an object due to the addition of a layer that absorbs outgoing thermal radiation from the object.

The layer could be solid, liquid or gas. The layer could block all or just some of the thermal radiation. There could be multiple layers.

Further note that any number of OTHER process could be involved that ALSO impact the energy balance (for example convection or changes in albedo). These OTHER processes might enhance or diminish the effect of the pure Greenhouse Effect.

To demonstrate that changes in outward radiation impacts temperature, the obvious starting point would be to construct an experiment where you minimize all other changes. So hold the surroundings constant in temperature. Supply a constant power to the object. Thermally isolate the greenhouse material from both the object and the surroundings. (For example, an object with a steady electric heater surrounded by a thin glass shell inside a refrigerated vacuum chamber). This effect is obvious and 100% accepted by scientists.

Once you understand this sort of truly basic physics, then you can start to work toward the amazingly complex and chaotic system that is the earth’s climate.

I live in the tropics. My house has a heavily insulated roof – to keep cool. As do cold rooms, refrigerators and so on.

The Earth has likewise cooled for four and a half billion years. When did your magical one way GHE insulator first start working?

By the way, experiments have been done. As far back as Tyndall, putting more insulation between a heat source and a thermometer reduces the amount of energy reaching the thermometer, and the temperature falls. That’s why surface temperatures get higher with altitude. Less atmosphere between the Sun and the thermometer.

* Do you disagree with my statement that thermal IR carries energy?
* Do you disagree with my statement that energy impacts temperature?
* Do you disagree that *in my proposed experiment* adding an IR-absorbing layer around the heated object in a vacuum will cause the object to get warmer?

“Thats why surface temperatures get higher with altitude.”
Tell that to all the snow-capped mountains. They clearly missed your lesson about temperature an altitude.

“The “Greenhouse Effect” is the change in thermal energy balance (and hence of temperature) of an object due to the addition of a layer that absorbs outgoing thermal radiation from the object.

The temperature of an object changes regardless of any GHE. Things get hotter, things cool down. Already explicable in terms of current physical knowledge. What observations require the use of a GHE to explain them? None at all!

As to your list of gotchas –

1. Photons carry energy. All photons. Any and every frequency.

2. Not in the way you imagine. A billion Watts of energy from ice will not raise the temperature of one teaspoon of water.

3. Your thought experiment is more of a thoughtless experiment. For some bizarre reason, you refuse to accept that the Sun is an external heat source with respect to the Earth. An actual example might relate to a rock on the Earths surface – it heats up in sunlight, and cools in its absence. No GHE required.

4. As to temperatures reaching higher levels when exposed to more sunlight (about 35% of insolation never reaches the Earths surface), read actual observations – Tyndall made quite a few as a mountaineer, and reports many others form other explorers and mountaineers. If you prefer something a little more modern, the Moons surface is exposed to the unattenuated impact of the Suns rays, and reaches far higher temperatures after the dame exposure times.

Just ordinary physics. No GHE.

Have you got any more silly gotchas? Do you deny that bananas absorb and emit infrared radiation?

Or more realistic questions – do you deny that the Earth has cooled since its creation? Do you believe that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter? Of course you dont. That would just be silly, wouldnt it?

Still no GHE. You still can’t even say what the effect is! You dont claim it makes thermometers hotter, apparently, and a thermometer is what is used to measure temperature!

“Already explicable in terms of current physical knowledge. ”
Yes — like the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. I was basically just stating that the SB Law exists! This “current physical knowledge” is exactly the basis of what I said. Radiation carries energy from one place to another. The “GHE” is not new physics — it is just a specific application of the known laws of radiation transfer!

“2. Not in the way you imagine. A billion Watts of energy from ice will not raise the temperature of one teaspoon of water. “
That is not even CLOSE to what I imagine! For one thing, it would be impossible to supply a billion watts of IR from ice to a spoonful of water. Something like 0.01 W would be the most (depending on the size of the spoon). Please — tell us how you propose supplying a billion watts to a spoonful of water.

“3. Your thought experiment is more of a thoughtless experiment. For some bizarre reason, you refuse …”
For some bizarre reason, you refuse to address issues at hand, preferring some bizarre tangents to try to side-track people. I assume it is because you simply cannot apply physics to basic situations. You are welcome to prove me wrong — would the object in my experiment get warmer with the shell in place than without the shell? It’s a yes or no question based on that “current physical knowledge” you are so keen on.

It’s not a “gotcha”. It’s rudimentary thermal physics that any physics major for the past 100 years could have answered.

I can only assume you agree that no amount of energy, however its units are expressed, emitted from a colder object (without a hotter internal heat source), can raise the temperature of a hotter object (also without a sufficient internal heat source). Otherwise, you would be in the very silly situation of thinking that you could concentrate the 300 W/m2 of IR emitted from ice, by means of a lens, and heat some water!

You keep talking about an imaginary experiment which has precisely no relationship to any proposed testable GHE hypothesis. Maybe you could instead imagine a thermometer on the surface, subjected to the rays of the Sun, and then provide some imaginary process which would raise its temperature by increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the thermometer.

Isn’t the GHE supposed to result in hotter thermometers from increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (between the thermometers and the Sun by definition)?

It doesn’t seem to have worked for four and a half billion years – the Earth has cooled in spite of your imaginary protestations to the contrary! So what has changed?

Still no GHE. CO2 can not be demonstrated to work its magic, except in climatological fantasies. Not good enough for continued funding, is it?

Carry on. You might convince the stupid, the ignorant, or the very gullible. Some people might even believe that the climate can be prevented from changing!

Mike claimed : “You keep talking about an imaginary experiment which has precisely no relationship to any proposed testable GHE hypothesis. “

This is patently false.

1) I, in fact, proposed a testable “the greenhouse effect” hypothesis (which is really just a specific application of the standard S-B Law for radiation).

2) I gave a simple example which has precisely EVERYTHING to do with that hypothesis.

*YOU* are the one who keeps talking about ‘imaginary experiments which have precisely no relationship to the proposed testable GHE’. Talking about focusing radiation from ice or blocking sunlight with CO2.

“1) I, in fact, proposed a testable the greenhouse effect hypothesis (which is really just a specific application of the standard S-B Law for radiation).”

Here’s one S-B definition –

“Specifically, the StefanBoltzmann law states that the total energy radiated per unit surface area of a black body across all wavelengths per unit time (also known as the black-body radiant emittance) is directly proportional to the fourth power of the black body’s thermodynamic temperature T”

Hmmm. Now explain again how adding CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter? You’re trying to sound sciency, but nowhere do you mention how your reference supports your notion that CO2 has magical heating properties.

So you haven’t proposed anything except fantasy, have you?

Nope. You’re still thrashing about in your wallow of gullibility.

Maybe you need to invent a magical one way insulator – transmits more total energy in one direction only! Then you could wrap it around some ice, and the ice would go to absolute zero, as the energy it emitted would be unable to pass back through your magical one way insulator.

Reverse it, and the ice would melt, and rise to an infinite temperature, as more and more energy accumulated within!

Bad luck. Try again. All you have to do is figure out how to reverse four and a half billion years of cooling, without doing anything at all except restoring some CO2 back to the atmosphere. How hard can it be?

“Now explain again how adding CO2 between a heat source and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter? “

First, you need to explain how that relates to anything I said. Adding that that CO2 makes the SOURCE of the IR hotter, not the receiver of the IR. The greenhouse effectg is about restricting the OUTFLOW of thermal radiation, not the inflow of thermal radiation. Every one of your arguments is a diversion away from the issue ant hand!

ALSO: you STILL haven’t answered the simple question. In the scenario I outlined, will the object get warmer when the shell is added? Explain based on SB law for thermal radiation.

You could quote the part of my statement with which you disagree, but of course you wont.

Redefining censorship to their own benefit is typical of the stupid and ignorant. Dr Spencer has the perfect right to allow whatever comments he deems appropriate to appear.

At least he allows comments with which he disagrees, to be aired – not censored in any way, as far as I can see. And why not? Facts are facts – whether you like them or not makes no difference at all.

One problem with the GHE is that nobody can even describe it, let alone propose a testable GHE hypothesis. Until you come up with something that can be tested, it remains assertion – fantasy if you wish.

Believe as you want – it does no harm. If you expect others to share that belief, or even support it monetarily, you might be asked to provide more than your word for the existence of the GHE. If you depend on an appeal to authority, you might have to specify the climate scientists whose science you depend on.

I wouldnt depend on Schmidt, Mann, Hansen or Jones too much. Who would you suggest as a world renowned climatologist?

Did you see the quote symbols that surrounded your quote? That was one of your quotes I disagree with.

In addition:

“If the GHE is a process, it will have steps designed to achieve a particular end, surely. You cannot state them.”

The science behind GHE has been explained and discussed on this forum many many times. Roy just posted a good description of it from Harvard in response to G*. You keep saying it has never been stated. That is both false and a lie.

That the science is too complicated for someone with your limited science background to grasp, unless put into two sentences, does not mean it has not been described, and does not mean it is wrong.

“One problem with the GHE is that nobody can even describe it, let alone propose a testable GHE hypothesis. Until you come up with something that can be tested, it remains assertion”

Here again, a total lie. It has been described to you many many times. Each time you ignore these descriptions, then restate the lie.

Your attempt at a noble defense of free speech and dissenting opinion is ridiculous. You have never come here to genuinely debate or discuss. You come here to troll, to irritate people, to waste peoples time, to use many ad-hom attacks, to raise straw men.

Behavior such as this, that is only intended to disrupt real debate and discussion, should be blocked.

Rather difficult to discuss that which you cannot even state, isn’t it?

Until you can produce a testable GHE hypothesis, you’re just spouting nonsense. Not science.

Are you trying to say that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, or do thermometers get hotter for no particular reason?

Is it a miracle, do you think?

Do you think this might explain why 2014 was the “Hottest year EVAH!”, and temperatures have dropped since? You might have a minor problem explaining why the Earth’s surface is no longer molten, or why Antarctica used to be ice free.

Off you go, and have another think. Pseudoscience requires constant rejigging, doesn’t it?

As to debunking, you might not like the fact that GHE proponents are convinced that increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer makes the thermometer hotter, but that is their belief.

More CO2 in the atmosphere supposedly raises temperatures on the surface (as measured by thermometers!). I agree its completely silly, but there you are.

Of course, foolish and ignorant believers then have to believe that more CO2 between the Sun and a thermometer raises temperatures at the same time as saying it doesnt!

Are you trying to say that daytime surface temperatures are going to rise after four and a half billion years of decreasing – by magic?

A bridge too far David. Available oxygen content in the ocean *Increases* with depth due to oxygen being more soluble in cold water (which forms at high latitudes). That cold water (1C or so, and rich in O2) is the deep ocean water that is everywhere. It is the “rain” of organic debris from biology near the surface that bacteria in the water column consume, using free O2, which is responsible for the drop in O2 with depth near the surface. Absent that “rain”, dissolved O2 would always rise with depth. Atmospheric CO2 has nothing to do with. Once you get past the near surface fall in O2, available O2 normally rises with depth. Smallish hypoxic regions tend to form where rivers carry a heavy organic load plus nutrients to the ocean, like the Mississippi entering the Gulf of Mexico.

Widespread hypoxia in the oceans can only happen if the ocean surface temperature at high latitudes rises so much (eg. 10C) that the solubility of O2 falls significantly, thermohaline circulation drops significantly, or both. The ocean is not turning hypoxic any time soon.

In most of the ocean, biological productivity is mainly limited by lack of nutrients, not lack of CO2. Yes, there is some influence of CO2 where nutrients are not limited, but not over most of the ocean surface.

Galactic radiation in periods of low solar magnetic activity changes the temperature in the lower stratosphere over the polar circle (especially during the polar night) not only by producing additional ozone, but also by producing additional CO2.
“Carbon-14 is produced in the upper layers of the troposphere and the stratosphere by thermal neutrons absorbed by nitrogen atoms. When cosmic rays enter the atmosphere, they undergo various transformations, including the production of neutrons.

The highest rate of carbon-14 production takes place at altitudes of 9 to 15 km (30,000 to 49,000 ft) and at high geomagnetic latitudes.

The rate of 14C production can be modelled[12] [13] and is between 16,400 and 18,800 atoms 14C m−2s−1, which agrees with the global carbon budget that can be used to backtrack,[14] but attempts to directly measure the production rate in situ were not very successful. Production rates vary because of changes to the cosmic ray flux caused by the heliospheric modulation (solar wind and solar magnetic field), and due to variations in the Earth’s magnetic field.”https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
These local temperature changes (depending on the Earth’s magnetic field) disrupt the circulation in the polar vortex.http://sol.spacenvironment.net/raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/cutoff.gif

All the while, they are STILL simply assuming (taking for granted) that there IS such a thing as a positive “climate sensitivity” to an increase of atmospheric CO2 in the first place. Even though there is STILL NO (!!) evidence anywhere in the real Earth system to suggest there is.

The last time they tried to determine this purely hypothetical quantity called “climate sensitivity” empirically (whatever that means, really), this was my comment:

You’re showing your desperation, Kristian. More energy is striking the ground — more NET energy, obviously. Or do you think there are gnomes under that ground sucking away ever more surface energy all the time?

Kristian, you’re resorting to pedantism in a desperate attempt to maintain your denialism. It won’t work, and never does.

Hahaha!!! Er, no, David. The net energy moves OUT from the surface. Because the surface is WARMER on average than its surroundings (the atmosphere and space). And so more “back radiation” from the atmosphere (DWLWIR) would REDUCE the net radiant energy flux. IF (!!!) the “forward radiation” from the surface (UWLWIR) didn’t also increase at the same time.

The net LW, after all, is UWLWIR minus DWLWIR, and so the net is only reduced by an increase in the DWLWIR term if the UWLWIR term doesn’t increase by at least the same amount.

This is SOOOO basic, David. You do nothing here but reveal your utter ignorance on this topic.

And as always, Nate, you manage to find a way to misrepresent what I say.

I’m not saying they *find* “climate sensitivity”. Because that would be suggesting there IS actually something for them to find, that “climate sensitivity” to an increase in atmospheric CO2 is in fact shown to be an actual ‘thing’.

What I’m saying is rather that they TRY to find a thing called “climate sensitivity”, and in so doing, they necessarily have to have started out with the preconception that there IS in fact such a thing to be found in the first place.

When the data shows there isn’t.

No, they clearly try to understand and minimize all other known forcings and sources of internal variability (volcanoes, PDO, AMO).

No, they don’t. They, after all, leave out the most important one: ASR (“absorbed solar radiation”). TSI isn’t the “solar forcing” on the Earth system. ASR is.

I don’t see anything wrong with what they did (…)

Hehe, I know you don’t, Nate. That’s because you’re dogmatically blind when it comes to this topic.

Your leave out much of what they did in their paper that doesnt fit your narrative. Then do it again.

This is so tedious. They ASSUME that global temps are positively “sensitive” to an increase in atmospheric CO2, Nate. That more CO2 in the atmosphere WILL and MUST make the global surface of the Earth warmer. Otherwise they couldn’t get the results they get.

Are you saying they DON’T presuppose such a direct causal connection!?

What evidence do you have that ASR has changed significantly since 1870?

*Sigh*

No one has evidence of anything back to 1870, Nate. We didn’t monitor the world as a whole back then, did we?

So I could ask you the same thing: What evidence do you have that the atmospheric “forcing” on the global surface of the Earth, from an increase in atmospheric CO2, has changed significantly since 1870?

“So I could ask you the same thing: What evidence do you have that the atmospheric forcing on the global surface of the Earth, from an increase in atmospheric CO2, has changed significantly since 1870?’

The evidence is quite strong. CO2, via ice cores and later direct measurements has increased by ~ 50% since 1870. There is a known mechanism whereby CO2 produces an enhanced GHE and a radiative forcing. Measurements, such as those cited by David, confirm directly the radiative forcing, the enhancement of DLWR, produced by the additional CO2 and other GHG in precisely the spectral bands expected.

“So I could ask you the same thing: What evidence do you have that the atmospheric forcing on the global surface of the Earth, from an increase in atmospheric CO2, has changed significantly since 1870?”

The evidence is quite strong. CO2, via ice cores and later direct measurements has increased by ~ 50% since 1870.

That would be evidence of an increase in atmospheric CO2, Nate, not of an increase in the atmospheric “forcing” on the surface of the Earth.

You’re responding to something that’s not being asked about. As is the custom of you CO2 warmists. All of you constantly act like slippery politicians.

There is a known mechanism whereby CO2 produces an enhanced GHE and a radiative forcing.

No, there isn’t. There is a THEORETICAL mechanism postulated, but it has NOT been shown empirically to work in the real Earth system.

“Back radiation” is NOT equal to “radiative forcing”, Nate. If that’s what you think.

Measurements, such as those cited by David, confirm directly the radiative forcing, the enhancement of DLWR, produced by the additional CO2 and other GHG in precisely the spectral bands expected.

No, they don’t. Here you reveal your ignorance on this topic.

Again, “back radiation” itself is NOT equal to “radiative forcing”.

This is elementary. And you should know it. But you don’t. And you don’t appear curious in the least about it.

The only way you could ever see an “enhanced GHE” causing ‘global warming’ in effective operation in the Earth system is by observing over time that the total All-Sky OLR at the ToA trended systematically DOWN relative to tropospheric temps. Problem is, it doesn’t:

“So I could ask you the same thing: What evidence do you have that the atmospheric forcing on the global surface of the Earth, from an increase in atmospheric CO2, has changed significantly since 1870?”

The evidence is quite strong. CO2, via ice cores and later direct measurements has increased by ~ 50% since 1870.

That would be evidence of an increase in atmospheric CO2, Nate, not of an increase in the atmospheric “forcing” on the surface of the Earth.

You’re responding to something that’s not being asked about. As is the custom of you CO2 warmists. All of you constantly act like slippery politicians.

There is a known mechanism whereby CO2 produces an enhanced GHE and a radiative forcing.

No, there isn’t. There is a THEORETICAL mechanism postulated, but it has NOT been shown empirically to work in the real Earth system.

“Back radiation” is NOT equal to “radiative forcing”, Nate. If that’s what you think.

Measurements, such as those cited by David, confirm directly the radiative forcing, the enhancement of DLWR, produced by the additional CO2 and other GHG in precisely the spectral bands expected.

No, they don’t. Here you reveal your ignorance on this topic.

Again, “back radiation” itself is NOT equal to “radiative forcing”.

This is elementary. And you should know it. But you don’t. And you don’t appear curious in the least about it.

The only way you could ever see an “enhanced GHE” causing ‘global warming’ in effective operation in the Earth system is by observing over time that the total All-Sky OLR at the ToA trended systematically DOWN relative to tropospheric temps. Problem is, it doesn’t:

“The only way you could ever see an “enhanced GHE” causing ‘global warming’ in effective operation in the Earth system is by observing over time that the total All-Sky OLR at the ToA trended systematically DOWN..”

Which CERES Team observations do show for OLR on 3 different instrument platforms: a recent trend down over January 2003 December 2014; daytime around -0.75 W/m^2 per decade. As reported in a published paper of which Kristian has been informed repeatedly.

OLR has been trending down in the longest meaningfully observed period in the satellite + ARGO era published per the CERES Team data shown Table 4 in Loeb et. al. 2016: “CERES Top-of-Atmosphere Earth Radiation Budget Climate Data Record: Accounting for in-Orbit Changes in Instrument Calibration”.

Kristian does not include confidence intervals in his self-cites which if he did the reader could then draw an equally confident conclusion (per Kristian plots) that OLR trended up, remained stable or trended down.

Kristian says:“Hehe, yes, David. Because of an increase in ASR, not a reduction in OLR. More heat IN (from the Sun), not less heat OUT (from the Earth).”

False. The Johnson+ paper contained no such conclusion – it only calculated the energy imbalance.

Uhm, yes. I didn’t say anything about the paper, David. I only pointed out that the positive imbalance it discusses is due to an increase in ASR (heat IN from the Sun) and not a reduction in OLR (heat OUT from the Earth).

You think the existing data is good enough to see the relative contribution of OLR and ASR. Published papers, subjected to peer review disagree with you. A difference is that they pay closer attention to random and systematic error, and biases in the data than you do, which is course essential in publishing. I would tend to trust the experimenters who collected the data in this regard.

You don’t have a natural mechanism that could account for increased ASR relative to a century ago.

They do have a mechanism for increased ASR, based on enhanced GHE and feedbacks, one that is seen in climate models when GHG are added. The models use known atmospheric physics. You think the models are wrong, I suppose, but can’t pinpoint the flaws.

You think the existing data is good enough to see the relative contribution of OLR and ASR.

It is. It is just as ‘good’ as the temperature data. Read the quality summaries of the teams that ACTUALLY produce these datasets. Not the papers of people with the obvious agenda of promoting the MODEL results over the observational DATA.

“(…) are Trenberth/Fasullo and Donohoe et al. right to distrust the validity of the radiation flux datasets, and thus simply dismiss them altogether? Or are they just pulling their claims of concern out of their … behinds?

Trenberth/Fasullo:

“(…) for observations of the Earth’s radiation, changes in instrumentation [and calibration] do not allow changes to be detected between the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) and more recent Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) observations [Fasullo and Trenberth, 2008a].”

Even Trenberth’s own (self-referencing) link (leading to the IPCC) appears to disagree:

“These conclusions depend upon the calibration stability of the ERBS non-scanner record, which is affected by diurnal sampling issues, satellite altitude drifts and changes in calibration following a three-month period when the sensor was powered off (Trenberth, 2002). (…) However, careful inspection of the sensor calibration revealed no known issues that can explain the decadal shift in the fluxes despite corrections to the ERBS time series relating to diurnal aliasing and satellite altitude changes (Wielicki et al., 2002b; Wong et al., 2006).”

The basis for Trenberth’s concerns was simply sorted out by 2006, with the development of the current Ed3_Rev1 version.

Donohoe et al.:

“(…) the limited length of satellite TOA radiation measurements precludes determination of the relative contributions of ASR and OLR by direct observation.”

I mean, how cheap an excuse is this? Limited length!? We have high-quality satellite ToA radiation flux measurements going back 33 years! That’s more years than what’s needed to establish a ‘climate normal’. We can easily determine from these measurements the “relative contributions of ASR and OLR by direct observation,” don’t you worry about that.”

Its quite simple, Kristian, youve written lots of words describing what you think the data show. Its difficult for us non experts to tell if youve done the analysis properly, not cherry picked, considered error and instrumental artifacts, etc. Those would be things expert peer reviewers will do. So let them do it.

Until youve done that, why should anyone accept your conclusions over those published?

The first one in DAs post is quite convincing. It measures the change in brightness temperature in spectral bands corresponding to GHG over the tropical pacific with clear skies. It compares to a detailed simulation of what would be expected if GHE radiative forcing was increasing with Increasing GHG.

What are specific flaws you see in this work?

This kind of measurement, together with theory, together with known CO2 rise in last century provides exactly what you asked for, a mechanism for the warming of the last century, that is not accounted for by other natural mechanisms.

They shouldn’t. Very reasonable point Nate, the answer is of course no one should accept Kristian’s self cites until Kristian at least adds confidence intervals showing himself where the data he graphs becomes non-meaningful.

Kristian simply prefers to disagree with CERES Team papers for his own agenda reasons. Kristian will never change so interested enough readers are forced into action to check out his reasoning with the actual CERES team when those readers are accomplished enough to reliably do so.

Indeed, Nate. It IS quite simple. You simply need to stop being so transparent. All data that conflicts with your belief system will automatically be dubbed ‘useless’ and thus dismissed offhand.

This is a standard method of denial of available empirical evidence that goes against the world view of any person deeply invested in any given faith, dogma or ideology. Instead of taking his time to face up to the data and see what it actually says and shows, he spends his time and puts all his efforts into trying to find ways to undermine and discredit it.

Another excer.p.t from the link above (including an extremely pertinent quote from Dr. Leon Festinger):

“They want us to turn a blind eye to the readily available, empirically obtained data by simply brushing it off as somehow “not up to standard”. They normally go to great lengths to try and make this point. To simply reject the ‘usefulness’ of the data. From Trenberth and Fasullo, 2009 (link below):

(…) for observations of the Earth’s radiation, changes in instrumentation [and calibration] do not allow changes to be detected between the Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) and more recent Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) observations [Fasullo and Trenberth, 2008a]. A continuous record from Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) is compromised by a discontinuity (late 1993) [Trenberth et al., 2007].

And Donohoe et al., 2014 (link below):

Reduced OLR (…) seems the likely cause of the observed global energy accumulation, although the limited length of satellite TOA radiation measurements precludes determination of the relative contributions of ASR and OLR by direct observation.

These are quite standard, run-of-the-mill examples of attempting, with easy cop-outs, to avoid the whole problem of ‘actual-observational-data-is-here-to-test-whether-the-models-are-in-fact-onto-something-or-not’. “Oh, sorry. Can’t use it. Too uncertain. There. Done. Back to our models, our only reliable source of understanding.” The irony …

Dr. Leon Festinger had this to say about this almost pathological unwillingness to acknowledge data and observations that go against one’s own ideas:

A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.

We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.

But man’s resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief and he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor for convincing and converting other people to his view.

(…) youve written lots of words describing what you think the data show.

No. I SHOW what the data shows, Nate. Big difference. The data and the plots are there for all to see.

Its difficult for us non experts to tell if youve done the analysis properly, not cherry picked, considered error and instrumental artifacts, etc.

If you actually cared to READ what I write, not just – as ALWAYS – make up your own version of what you THINK I’m saying and doing, you would see that I am indeed careful to make sure that the data are quality checked, corrected and properly adjusted. Again, I use ERBS Ed3_Rev1 and CERES EBAF Ed4 data. The best and most updated data available. There are published papers and quality summaries describing both datasets, including correction procedures. And I specifically link to these papers.

And I guess you are able to read a simple graph, Nate? To see for yourself what the DATA is actually telling you. Or is it too difficult for you? Are you THAT much of a “non-expert”? If so, maybe you shouldn’t come here so often to opinionate on these very matters. Maybe you should rather pick up a book and start reading …

Those would be things expert peer reviewers will do. So let them do it.

I am. Read Loeb et al. and Wong et al. THEY are the authorities on these particular datasets, NOT Trenberth and Donohoe.

Please show me a sign that you possess at least SOME understanding of this topic, Nate.

To reiterate (this is getting tiresome):The only way you could ever see an “enhanced GHE” causing ‘global warming’ in effective operation in the Earth system is by observing over time that the total All-Sky OLR at the ToA trended systematically DOWN relative to tropospheric temps. Problem is, it doesn’t:

(…)

All other observations are irrelevant. Because they DON’T INCLUDE THE WHOLE PICTURE.

The first one in DAs post is quite convincing.

I’m sure it is. To you. Since you’ve already decided that the conclusions it draws are correct, I mean.

It measures the change in brightness temperature in spectral bands corresponding to GHG over the tropical pacific with clear skies. It compares to a detailed simulation of what would be expected if GHE radiative forcing was increasing with Increasing GHG.

Yup. And this ‘find’ is, as I point out, irrelevant to what the “GHE” is really supposed to be about – the restriction of the TOTAL ALL-SKY OLR at the ToA (at any given system T). Did Harries find that the total all-sky OLR at the ToA had been reduced between 1970 and 1997? No. Did he even try to find out? No. Did he draw his (foregone) conclusion all the same? Of course he did.

What are specific flaws you see in this work?

None but his conclusion. Just like with the Feldman studies. They simply haven’t got the data to conclude the way they do. I’m sure they measured what they measured. But none of them measured “the GHE” or an “enhanced GHE”.

This kind of measurement, together with theory, together with known CO2 rise in last century provides exactly what you asked for (…)

Nope. Because you need so many other factors to fall in line and behave the way YOU assume they do. If you only measure “back radiation” in clear-sky within narrow segments of the EM spectrum, with both cloud and water vapour impacts methodologically removed, in a couple of point locations, you do not have enough information to say ANYTHING about the state of the “GHE”. There are SOOO many other factors involved that you need to take into account before you start drawing conclusions about anything.

You can’t apply the theoretical “All Else Being Equal” stipulation in an empirical study out in the real Earth system, Nate. Because there, nothing is ever equal.

Once more: You need to look at the total all-sky OLR at the ToA and compare it over time with the tropospheric temps. Because that encompasses everything, all the factors. Nothing else will do. IF you want to know whether the “GHE” has been strengthened to cause ‘global warming’ or not.

(…) a mechanism for the warming of the last century, that is not accounted for by other natural mechanisms.

Yes and not Kristian as Loeb et. al. 2016 Table 4 shows a meaningful decadal OLR trend conclusion (down) vs. no meaningful trend information in Kristian’s self-cites since they do not show any confidence intervals.

I agree with Kristian here: “Read Loeb et al. and Wong et al.” if an interested reader wants to learn from the meaningful conclusions based on the observed data.

And I agree with Nate that Kristian’s comments show: yes “almost pathological unwillingness to acknowledge data and observations that go against one’s own ideas” is happening in Kristian’s sometimes shouted comments or Kristian would cite Loeb & Wong papers along with other CERES Team writers & not self-cite.

“Nope. Because you need so many other factors to fall in line and behave the way YOU assume they do. If you only measure back radiation in clear-sky within narrow segments of the EM spectrum, with both cloud and water vapour impacts methodologically removed, in a couple of point locations, you do not have enough information to say ANYTHING about the state of the GHE.”

That first paper is not measuring back radiation, it is measuring OLR. Another of the papers was measuring DWLR.

“with both cloud and water vapour impacts methodologically removed”

That is getting a separate issue of feedbacks, not addressed by the paper. That gets into the whole measuring climate sensitivity issue, which the Curry paper tried to determine.

Climate sensitivity is no

You claim climate sensitivity is not even a thing

“Im not saying they *find* climate sensitivity. Because that would be suggesting there IS actually something for them to find, that climate sensitivity to an increase in atmospheric CO2 is in fact shown to be an actual thing.”

It is not a global measurement, but better, IMO, because it is a simpler, more controllable, more easily modeled atmosphere, over tropical ocean, clear sky, same season.

Sure. And that’s fine. But then you’re not assessing the GHE, Nate. Then you’re looking at something else entirely, something much more particular and restricted, specifically isolated from all the other factors that matter.

It demonstrates the atmospheric physics underlying the GHE and enhanced GHE is correct, under simple known conditions.

But no one is questioning THIS particular piece of the physics puzzle we’re dealing with here. I’ve never said anything about radiative physics being wrong in any way, Nate. All I’ve been saying this whole time is that it is but ONE piece of the total picture. It is NOT the ONLY physics relevant to the issue at hand. You can’t conclude about what the WHOLE PICTURE will look like based on knowing/measuring just ONE PIECE of it …

As I’ve stated many times, the “CO2 warming effect” works perfectly well THEORETICALLY, and it WOULD work empirically as well, IF ONLY you managed to make sure that ALL OTHER FACTORS stayed constant/unchanged. You COULD pull something like that off in a controlled laboratory experiment (although it wouldn’t be easy even there). But you could NEVER (!!) do it out there in nature, in the real Earth system.

To reiterate:
Harries and Feldman are only ‘wrong’ in their conclusions. Because neither of them are even close to having the data necessary to conclude the way they do. I’m sure they measured what they measured. But none of them measured “the GHE” or an “enhanced” version of it, that’s pretty self-evident.

That is something you have claimed is ‘just theory’, unproven. No. It has been tested.

You’re still not paying attention, Nate. You’re just wallowing inside your little bubble, not heeding at all what I’m actually saying.

I’m not saying that the basic radiative mechanisms of IR absorp.tion and emission are ‘just theory’. Why on earth would I do that!? That’s an empiricial fact.

The ‘just theory’ part is reserved for the jumping to sweeping conclusions straight FROM this isolated empirical fact: the “GHE” and the “enhanced GHE”.

That first paper is not measuring back radiation, it is measuring OLR. Another of the papers was measuring DWLR.

I know. Well, it isn’t really measuring OLR, is it? It measures the LW radiation, to find the brightness temperature, within narrow segments of the full EM spectrum. Disregarding water vapour. In clear-sky. Disregarding clouds. Which therefore tells you NOTHING about the actual “GHE”. For that you need the total (full-spectrum) all-sky flux. Versus tropospheric temps.

Which I’ve told you several times now, Nate.

You claim climate sensitivity is not even a thing

It isn’t. It is purely a theoretical concept, based on certain assumptions that have never been empirically verified as true in the real Earth system.

JC[John Cook of ‘Skeptical Science’]: I was wondering if your analysis determined whether the total amount of outgoing longwave radiation had decreased from IRS to IMG? If so, is it mentioned in any of your papers (I couldn’t find anything but I may have missed something)?

JH [John Harries; yes, THE John Harries]: It’s a good question. The problem is that the observations do not cover the whole of the outgoing spectrum, and so it is impossible to obtain a total integral across all wavelengths. The ‘missing’ part of the spectrum is mainly at lower wavenumbers than about 500 cm-1, where there are effects due to the water vapour feedback.

Even if we could integrate the whole of the outgoing IR, there is still the shortwave (SW) side of the net radiation balance, which we would need to consider to look at the total energy change, in and out.

One other point: to sum up all the energy you would have to use the radiance spectrum, not the brightness temperature spectrum. Though they are equivalent, the transform from one to the other is not linear. So, integrating brightness temperature would not be easy to interpret.

At present, therefore, the spectral measurements are not available to do the integration you suggest, which is why you found no mention in my papers. If you are interested in understanding any changes in the measured incoming and outgoing radiation, the best approach is to use the broad-band (non-spectral) Radiation Budget measurements from instruments such as NASA’s CERES.

The temperature for (c) is higher than (b) basically because the emission height is greater. (The explanation is slightly different depending on whether or not there is an IR window.) The more GHGs there are, the higher the emission height making higher elevations cooler and making the surface warmer.

Ah, but this is just what your THEORY is saying, Tim. I know all about that already. Youre referring to your theory alone as somehow justification for that very same theory. Thats called circular reasoning, Tim.

What Im asking you is what OBSERVED REALITY you are basing this particular claim of yours on…..

Show me. Dont tell me. Show me!”

The paper that we’ve been discussing does just that. It shows you experimental confirmation of what you call “just theory”.

Kristian says:As Ive stated many times, the CO2 warming effect works perfectly well THEORETICALLY, and it WOULD work empirically as well, IF ONLY you managed to make sure that ALL OTHER FACTORS stayed constant/unchanged.

Kristian, as you well know, that’s not possible to achieve — though papers like Feldman+ attempt to do their best.

So given that your condition is impossible to achieve, HOW DO YOU propose to detect the presence or absence of AGW?

Folkerts:“The temperature for (c) is higher than (b) basically because the emission height is greater. (The explanation is slightly different depending on whether or not there is an IR window.) The more GHGs there are, the higher the emission height making higher elevations cooler and making the surface warmer.”

Kristian:
(…)“What Im asking you is what OBSERVED REALITY you are basing this particular claim of yours on …

Show me. Dont tell me. Show me!”

Nate:
The paper that we’ve been discussing does just that. It shows you experimental confirmation of what you call “just theory”.

No, Nate. No! You’re not moving on. You’re not able to see beyond the tip of your nose. Or are you just generally slow?

All I can do is repeat myself yet again:

The only way you could ever see an “enhanced GHE” causing ‘global warming’ in effective operation in the Earth system is by observing over time that the total All-Sky OLR at the ToA trended systematically DOWN relative to tropospheric temps. Problem is, it doesn’t:

All other observations are irrelevant. Because they DON’T INCLUDE THE WHOLE PICTURE.

What did John Harries himself just say, Nate? What did he say? Read the bloody quote just above yours!

John Cook asks him: “I was wondering if your analysis determined whether the total amount of outgoing longwave radiation had decreased from IRS to IMG?”

And Harries responds: “The problem is that the observations do not cover the whole of the outgoing spectrum, and so it is impossible to obtain a total integral across all wavelengths.

(…)

At present, therefore, the spectral measurements are not available to do the integration you suggest, which is why you found no mention in my papers. If you are interested in understanding any changes in the measured incoming and outgoing radiation, the best approach is to use the broad-band (non-spectral) Radiation Budget measurements from instruments such as NASA’s CERES.”

Are you able to read this?

Harries et al. are NOT (!!!!!) showing that Earth’s emission height is pushed higher to create ‘global warming’, Nate. Because in order to do that, they would have to look at the TOTAL (FULL-SPECTRUM) OLR IN ALL-SKY AT THE ToA AND COMPARE IT TO THE TROPOSPHERIC TEMPS.

So given that your condition is impossible to achieve, HOW DO YOU propose to detect the presence or absence of AGW?

It is not impossible to achieve, David. But there is only one way it could be detected. (Feldman and Harries weren’t even close.) And this method has been described half a dozen times now on this thread alone.

The only way you could ever see an “enhanced GHE” causing ‘global warming’ in effective operation in the Earth system is by observing over time that the total All-Sky OLR at the ToA trended systematically DOWN relative to tropospheric temps.

“The only way you could ever see an enhanced GHE causing global warming in effective operation in the Earth system is by observing over time that the total All-Sky OLR at the ToA trended systematically DOWN relative to tropospheric temps. Problem is, it doesnt:”

You’ve shown graphs that show both UAH temperature and OLR trending downward with similar trend. But..

1. You dont discuss error on the measurement. There is considerable error. That matters.

2. You would like to say this graph falsifies ‘enhanced GHE’. In order to do that you need a quantititive prediction from ‘enhanced GHE’. You need to compare to the same quantity derived from the data, with error. Is the disagreement that you claim to see, between prediction and measurement significant? Ie is prediction well outside the error range? You have not done that.

3. Your plea to just look at the graph (actually you show dozens of graphs), is not science. Science is quantitative analysis.

4. Youve chosen UAH data to compare OLR, which has the lowest trend. Why? How about RSS? Why lower troposphere, not mid troposphere?

You’ve shown graphs that show both UAH temperature and OLR trending downward with similar trend.

Have I? I thought they both trended upward? I think you need to look at the plots one more time. Remember to read them from left to right, not the other way around.

1. You dont discuss error on the measurement.

What measurement? The temperature measurement or the OLR measurement?

Do you normally “discuss error on the measurement” whenever you present, say, a GISTEMP temperature series to make a point?

The “error on the measurement” is duly discussed in the ‘Data Quality Summaries’ for each dataset, Nate. And in the peer-reviewed papers that typically accompany and describe them.

Just go read them yourself.

There is considerable error.

No. These data are very stable and precise indeed. They’re the most thoroughly quality-checked and analysed radiation flux data around, and for that very reason alone there are tons of papers out there devoted specifically to testing various model results and predictions, observational data from other platforms (like AIRS), and even different hypotheses about the climate system itself, using these particular radiation flux datasets (ERBS Ed3_Rev1 and CERES EBAF Ed4) as benchmark and control data series.

Whenever people talk about ‘problems’ that ‘matter’ with these datasets, they are invariably referring to the ACCURACY of the ABSOLUTE flux values, and/or to the CLEAR-SKY products, which need to be calculated. The total global All-Sky OLR flux anomaly data are the most stable and precise of them all. And they correlate extremely well with other similar radiation flux datasets like HIRS, ISCCP FD and AIRS.

2. You would like to say this graph falsifies ‘enhanced GHE’. In order to do that you need a quantititive prediction from ‘enhanced GHE’.

I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that any of my graphs outright “falsify” the idea of an “enhanced GHE”, Nate.

They just (strongly) suggest that the whole proposition is highly unlikely to be correct, since they provide such unequivocal evidence that its postulated mechanism for warming has yet to be discerned in the real Earth system.

They simply show everything to be completely normal – nothing out of the ordinary appears to be happening in the Earth system …

So a qualitative prediction will do. And that prediction says that over time, systematically and progressively, the total global all-sky OLR at the ToA will trend DOWN relative to tropospheric temps.

Well, it doesn’t. There’s not even a hint.

3. Your plea to just look at the graph (actually you show dozens of graphs), is not science. Science is quantitative analysis.

Haha! So plotting observational data and see what they show in a graph is not science, according to Master Nate. You have to statistically analyse the graph before you can know what your eyes are seeing.

“If we want to know if there has been a change from the start to the end dates, all we have to do is look! I’m tempted to add a dozen more exclamation points to that sentence, it is that important. We do not have to model what we can see. No statistical test is needed to say whether the data has changed. We can just look.

I have to stop, lest I become exasperated. We statisticians have pointed out this fact until we have all, one by one, turned blue in the face and passed out, the next statistician in line taking the place of his fallen comrade.

(…)

Again, if you want to claim that the data has gone up, down, did a swirl, or any other damn thing, just look at it!“

The result would basically be the same with RSSv4 tlt. The only difference of any significance, after all, between the UAHv6 and the RSSv4 tlt datasets is to be found in the 1999-2003 segment, where the latter lifts 0.15K above the former, and the stitch between the ERBS and CERES datasets occurs in 2000, right there.

In fact, the merged ERBS+CERES series (not surprisingly, considering the RSS used to agree with the UAH) seems to verify the correctness of the UAH temperature series over the RSS one. IOW, the RSS upward adjustment is most likely spurious.

Why lower troposphere, not mid troposphere?

Christy, Spencer and Braswell actually just recently published a paper discussing the various TMT products available. Maybe you should read it:

You’ve shown graphs that show both UAH temperature and OLR trending downward with similar trend.

Have I? I thought they both trended upward? I think you need to look at the plots one more time. Remember to read them from left to right, not the other way around.

1. You dont discuss error on the measurement.

What measurement? The temperature measurement or the OLR measurement?

Do you normally “discuss error on the measurement” whenever you present, say, a GISTEMP temperature series to make a point?

The “error on the measurement” is duly discussed in the ‘Data Quality Summaries’ for each dataset, Nate. And in the peer-reviewed papers that typically accompany and describe them.

Just go read them yourself.

There is considerable error.

No. These data are very stable and precise indeed. They’re the most thoroughly quality-checked and analysed radiation flux data around, and for that very reason alone there are tons of papers out there devoted specifically to testing various model results and predictions, observational data from other platforms (like AIRS), and even different hypotheses about the climate system itself, using these particular radiation flux datasets (ERBS Ed3_Rev1 and CERES EBAF Ed4) as benchmark and control data series.

Whenever people talk about ‘problems’ that ‘matter’ with these datasets, they are invariably referring to the ACCURACY of the ABSOLUTE flux values, and/or to the CLEAR-SKY products, which need to be calculated. The total global All-Sky OLR flux anomaly data are the most stable and precise of them all. And they correlate extremely well with other similar radiation flux datasets like HIRS, ISCCP FD and AIRS.

2. You would like to say this graph falsifies ‘enhanced GHE’. In order to do that you need a quantititive prediction from ‘enhanced GHE’.

I don’t think I’ve ever claimed that any of my graphs outright “falsify” the idea of an “enhanced GHE”, Nate.

They just (strongly) suggest that the whole proposition is highly unlikely to be correct, since they provide such unequivocal evidence that its postulated mechanism for warming has yet to be discerned in the real Earth system.

They simply show everything to be completely normal – nothing out of the ordinary appears to be happening in the Earth system …

So a qualitative prediction will do. And that prediction says that over time, systematically and progressively, the total global all-sky OLR at the ToA will trend DOWN relative to tropospheric temps.

Well, it doesn’t. There’s not even a hint.

3. Your plea to just look at the graph (actually you show dozens of graphs), is not science. Science is quantitative analysis.

Haha! So plotting observational data and see what they show in a graph is not science, according to Master Nate. You have to statistically analyse the graph before you can know what your eyes are seeing.

“If we want to know if there has been a change from the start to the end dates, all we have to do is look! I’m tempted to add a dozen more exclamation points to that sentence, it is that important. We do not have to model what we can see. No statistical test is needed to say whether the data has changed. We can just look.

I have to stop, lest I become exasperated. We statisticians have pointed out this fact until we have all, one by one, turned blue in the face and passed out, the next statistician in line taking the place of his fallen comrade.

(…)

Again, if you want to claim that the data has gone up, down, did a swirl, or any other damn thing, just look at it!“

The result would basically be the same with RSSv4 tlt. The only difference of any significance, after all, between the UAHv6 and the RSSv4 tlt datasets is to be found in the 1999-2003 segment, where the latter lifts 0.15K above the former, and the stitch between the ERBS and CERES datasets occurs in 2000, right there.

In fact, the merged ERBS+CERES series (not surprisingly, considering the RSS used to agree with the UAH) seems to verify the correctness of the UAH temperature series over the RSS one. IOW, the RSS upward adjustment is most likely spurious.

Why lower troposphere, not mid troposphere?

Christy, Spencer and Braswell actually just recently published a paper discussing the various TMT products available. Maybe you should read it:

“The “error on the measurement” is duly discussed in the ‘Data Quality Summaries’ for each dataset, Nate. And in the peer-reviewed papers that typically accompany and describe them.”

Yes, and with that discussion Kristian can easily show & cite the error bars that Nate is asking about because they are done for Kristian by CERES Team.

Per CERES Team paper daytime OLR has tended down recently around -0.75 +/-0.4 W/m^2 per decade. In Kristian’s graphs the trend is not discernable as Kristian graphs data pre-Argo with higher error bars that are wider than the trend thus obscures any trend.

1)
Once again, troll, you reveal what a liar you are, this time by deliberate omission.

“Kristian’s terms” DIDN’T state, after all, that the signal we’re looking for is merely a reduction in OLR. It very clearly stated:“Progressively reducing over time the total all-sky OLR flux at the ToArelative to tropospheric temps. That is, reducing Earth’s heat loss to space for any given altitude-specific temperature.”

And people can easily see this for themselves. It’s right there, just above your post, troll.

It thereby supersedes your preferred source, and is now their latest official work on their newest dataset edition, the EBAF Ed4.0. It discusses the global daytime-nighttime product using the entire dataset (2000-2016).

Dr. Loeb took down his paper summary page that I had kept up with over a year ago so I was unaware of this Jan. L2018 paper extending the periods in L2016 paper I earlier pointed out to you. It will take some time to parse the specialist lingo and all the abbreviations but I scanned through L2018.

Yes, the L2018 paper extends to a longer period than the L2016 paper adding ~5 years as you show. On first read, I do not find where they walk away from their earlier 2016 Table 4 so unless you or others can point out an issue that earlier shorter period ~13-year data is still good, driven by ENSO think they said.

With the longest extended period in the Table 7 data you clipped out, yes, they now report no meaningful OLR trend since “all-sky LW TOA ﬂux trends are (less than) 0.2 W/m^2 per decade” with larger CI of +/- 0.21 unlike in L2016 where a meaningful downtrend in LW was reported for the shorter ~13-year period as I noted in this thread.

NB1: Earth energy imbalance is shown in the range 0.5 to 1 W/m^2 “to quantify Earth’s energy imbalance (EEI) is daunting…roughly 0.15% of the total incoming and outgoing radiation at the TOA”.

NB2: “..trends in TOA ﬂux for this short record are still primarily driven by internal variability of the climate system..”

Nate Do you mean W/m^2 not K? Or splain please. L2018 is equally 95% confident the OLR trend was down @ -0.02 W/m2 per decade in the period you note.

Since L2018 notes a positive imbalance there is energy being absorbed in the observed system 20km and below (“A reference level of 20km is assumed for deﬁning TOA ﬂuxes”). The system is not yet at equilibrium near as researchers can tell. This is the motivation for the hunt for the deep ocean temperature fields over time and Argo funding.

Kristian, I am well aware what part of the sky is covered by Harries et al, and what part isn’t.

The ab.sorp.tion spectra of clouds (and water vapor) and CO2 do not completely overlap. Therefore the clear-sky properties of atmospheric CO2 matter.

—

Kristian, you seem to think that AGW can’t be accepted until one and only one measurement proves all the stages of the process to several sigma.

This is very unlikely to happen — and doesn’t need to.

The case for AGW is based on an overwhelming abundance of evidence from many different directions. That’s the usually the best that can be done in complex situations like climate — or medicine, or astronomy, or geology, etc.

There is no one experiment or observation that proves smoking causes lung cancer. There can’t be, since there are too many variables to control for. But the evidence, coming from many different directions, is overwhelming.

It’s the same with AGW and climate change — the evidence from may different points of view is overwhelming. (

As is the theory, which is based on quite simply physics established long ago.)

The ab.sorp.tion spectra of clouds (and water vapor) and CO2 do not completely overlap. Therefore the clear-sky properties of atmospheric CO2 matter.

First of all, the Earth spectrum the satellites ‘see’ from space is NOT an absorp.tion spectrum, David. It’s an emission spectrum.

This simple fact seems to confuse many a CO2 warmist like yourself.

Second of all, the emission spectrum of water vapour does not completely overlap with the CO2 emission spectrum, that’s true. However, the emission spectra of clouds DO. Clouds are like floating graybodies, made up of trillions of liquid and/or solid water and aerosol particles. If Earth’s surface covers the CO2 spectrum segment, then clouds do too. And remember now, David, that at any particular time (on average) clouds in one form or another cover ~66% of our planet’s surface. That’s two thirds of it. In other words, global “Clear-Sky” OLR isn’t a real thing. It’s a conceptual thing. It doesn’t exist as average condition. Only “all-sky” does. All-Sky is OBSERVED REALITY. Clear-Sky is but an idealized, guesstimated state.

Kristian, you seem to think that AGW can’t be accepted until one and only one measurement proves all the stages of the process to several sigma.

No, David.

All you need to do in order to show an “enhanced GHE” causing ‘global warming’ in effective operation in the Earth system is to observe over time that the total All-Sky OLR at the ToA trends systematically and progressively DOWN relative to tropospheric temps.

The case for AGW is based on an overwhelming abundance of evidence from many different directions.

Nope. It is based on nothing but theory and theory-based models. The theory dictates the models, and the models ‘confirm’ the theory; A Perfect Circle. It is not based on ANY actual observations from the real Earth system whatsoever. In fact, such observations are readily available, but they happen to show the exact OPPOSITE of what the theory and the models postulate. And so everyone just chooses to pretend they’re not there …

There is no one experiment or observation that proves smoking causes lung cancer. There can’t be, since there are too many variables to control for. But the evidence, coming from many different directions, is overwhelming.

K: “And this find is, as I point out, irrelevant to what the GHE is really supposed to be about the restriction of the TOTAL ALL-SKY OLR at the ToA (at any given system T). Did Harries”

How can you say its irrelevant to the GHE that the GHG are restricting OLR, only in their respective frequency bands, as advertised in the theory? That is what GHE is supposed to be.

But you see, Nate, the “theory” doesn’t advertise what you seem to think it’s advertising.

The “GHE” isn’t restricted to tiny segments of a regional clear-sky spectrum that leaves out both the atmospheric window, water vapour and clouds.

The “GHE” is supposed to encompass EVERYTHING that happens below the top of the atmosphere (ToA). The full global, annual All-Sky OLR spectrum is the only thing that catches it all.

There is no such thing as a “partial GHE”, Nate.

The root cause of your (and most people’s) confusion on this topic is clearly the ever-present “All Else Being Equal” clause that goes with the hypothesis.

The whole proposition would simply disintegrate into nothingness if this premise weren’t at all times there (and totally true). So it needs to be in place.

Here’s how it works:

Harries et al. calibrate and compare the ToA emission spectra of IR-active trace gases (including CO2) in the atmosphere over some area in the tropical East Pacific, brought back by two different satellite radiometric instruments 27 years apart, and find that the brightness temperature in these specific bands has dropped somewhat, meaning that the clear-sky emission fluxes detected in these narrow, isolated segments of the EMR spectrum specifically have apparently decreased a little bit in intensity from 1970 to 1997.

So, in order to be able to draw ANY conclusions from this very limited observation alone about the evolution of the “greenhouse effect” as a whole, one has to employ the “All Else Being Equal” clause as an absolute premise. Everything else must be considered to have remained completely unchanged between the time of the first measurement (t_0, 1970) and the time of the second (t_1, 1997). And by ‘everything’ I mean EVERYTHING. All Else. All other relevant factors. Including from regional to global.

Otherwise, there are no conclusions to be drawn about anything beyond what is actually being looked at.

Exactly the same goes for the Feldman et al. studies …

None of them have the data to conclude the way they do. Not even remotely so. Simple as that.

Now do have a compelling argument why water vapor and clouds must cancel out the restriction of OLR produced by the other GHG?

In fact, we know that warming produces more water vapor and therefore further restriction of OLR.

Look. As always, Nate, all you need to do is look at the DATA. Don’t just ASSUME things to be the case. Observe!

From 1985 till today (that’s over the last 33 years), the total global content of water vapour (TPW) in the atmosphere increased by about 5% (from 2.8 to 2.95 cm), a natural consequence of the concurrent rise in global SSTs, while the total global content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the same time increased by about 17.5% (from 347 to 408 ppm).

This SHOULD – according to “theory” – have strengthened the postulated “greenhouse” warming mechanism* immensely. But did it? No. Not one single bit. We observe no systematic change at all over the time frame in question in the corresponding relationship between tropospheric temps and total all-sky OLR at the ToA:

K:’Everything else must be considered to have remained completely unchanged between the time of the first measurement (t_0, 1970) and the time of the second (t_1, 1997). And by everything I mean EVERYTHING. All Else. All other relevant factors. Including from regional to global.’

No not at all. Why. This paper is not addressing all other changes which obviously are taking place. Those are climate feedbacks. The strengths of those are still debated. The paper uses measurements of temp and humidity in order to take them into account in the modeling.

But THIS discussion is getting at the issue of, fundamentally, is there an enhancement of radiative forcing with GHG. You claimed, as recently as a couple of weeks ago, that fundamentally there is NOT. You did not bring up clouds or water vapor feedbacks in that discussion. NOW you are saying its all about them. That is no longer fundamental.

As I quoted your discussion with Tim, you emphasized that GHE and/or enhanced GHE is theoretical, not proven. It is proven! By papers such as this one.

Graphs. Just look at them, you say. You’re sounding at lot like Bart. Science papers do not just show graphs. They present analysis of them, quantitative analysis, with caveats about error, with theoretical predictions, and comparisons between the two. It is not trivial. I have lots of experience with this. Nothing is convincing or publishable that is just qualitative, my friend. You’re not even comparing the linear trends.

In in your case, youve made choices about what graphs to show, what data sets to use. Youve made adjustments. Are those choices and adjustments justified, or do they reflect your biases? How do I know?

RSS has a very different slope from UAH (yes, I know, upward). You choose UAH, and LT. Good reasons for that, or just cuz it fits better your narrative? I don’t know.

I don’t understand why anyone would expect to SEE a reduction in OLR as a result of an enhanced GHE.

Measure the OLR emitted from a white t-shirt that a person is wearing. Then have the person put on another layer and wait until he has reached a steady (higher) temperature. Now measure the OLR again, it should, in theory, be the same as before.

As expected a reduction in OLR caused the person to get warmer. Also as expected this process was never observed.

Once the person has warmed up as a result of a adding a second t- shirt, we would expect the thin layer of air next to his skin to be slightly warmer than previously, correct?

A layer of air, like anything else, radiates at a rate proportional to its temperature, so I would expect the “backradiation” from this layer to have increased slightly compared to wearing only one t-shirt.

Conclusion: once a higher, steady temperature is reached, surface backradiation (the surface in this case being the person’s skin) should be higher while OLR should be unchanged.

Putting on a t-shirt is a discrete event, and an equilibrium will be reached in a certain amount of elapsed time.

Not so in an atmosphere where C02 is continuously arriving. Let’s say OLR is measured in the morning and then again at night and no decease is detected. Why would it, there was never a discreet addition of Co2?

Kristian wrote:All you need to do in order to show an enhanced GHE causing global warming in effective operation in the Earth system is to observe over time that the total All-Sky OLR at the ToA trends systematically and progressively DOWN relative to tropospheric temps.

Snape says:Measure the OLR emitted from a white t-shirt that a person is wearing. Then have the person put on another layer and wait until he has reached a steady (higher) temperature. Now measure the OLR again, it should, in theory, be the same as before.

Why?

{Your assumptions are not science, just assumptions based on your feelings.}

K:‘Everything else must be considered to have remained completely unchanged between the time of the first measurement (t_0, 1970) and the time of the second (t_1, 1997). And by everything I mean EVERYTHING. All Else. All other relevant factors. Including from regional to global.’

No not at all. Why.

Seriously? Are you just plainly denying this simple and obvious fact? Well, it’s the last refuge of a true believer, I guess: Full denial mode.

Then I fear we don’t have anything more to talk about, Nate. From this point on. You’ve revealed your true purpose here …

This paper is not addressing all other changes which obviously are taking place.

I KNOW! THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT! AND THE AUTHORS – AND ALL PEOPLE READING THEIR PAPER – THEREFORE ARE IN NO POSITION TO CONCLUDE THE WAY THEY DO! SAME WITH FELDMAN ET AL. …!

But you DO conclude! You ALL do! And THAT’S the problem.

But you’re just ‘purposefully’ not getting what I’m saying, Nate. And it speaks volumes. And this is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re completely blinded by your dogma. I’m not gonna spend more time and effort spelling something as simple and self-explanatory as this out to a person that appears so set on NOT getting it, or not caring; sorry.

If you seriously don’t WANT to get this point, Nate, then you ARE, in all respects, a lost case.

Assuming that all other factors will change ONLY as feedbacks to the change in your “radiative forcing” is tantamount to assuming they won’t change at all, Nate. You’re simply saying: ‘They’re not able to – and thus won’t – change independently over time. They can ONLY change as mere RESPONSES to my imposed “radiative forcing”.

The only thing you’re ‘forcing’ with such an approach, Nate, is nature to comply with your own belief system.

But THIS discussion is getting at the issue of, fundamentally, is there an enhancement of radiative forcing with GHG.

No! This is PRECISELY the conclusion that you cannot draw! Because there is no such thing as a PARTIAL “GHE”. The “GHE” has to strengthen in its ENTIRETY in order to affect global temps. And you’re not gauging the “GHE” in its entirety by looking at one-way radiation inside narrow trace gas segments of the full EM spectrum in clear-sky over a tiny portion of the globe.

As I quoted your discussion with Tim, you emphasized that GHE and/or enhanced GHE is theoretical, not proven. It is proven! By papers such as this one.

These papers are not concluding on the EXISTENCE of the “GHE”. They’re concluding on the ENHANCEMENT of a “GHE” already assumed to exist.

And they haven’t got the data to draw such a conclusion. Not even remotely so. Because they’re only looking at ONE piece of the puzzle. You can’t know what the full picture will look like from just studying ONE tiny piece of it, Nate. Even IF you’re taking for granted that all the other pieces will simply conform to the one that you’ve happened to pick. You don’t know what the full picture will look like before you see it!

THAT’S science!

Forget about all kinds of theoretical considerations and people’s mere opinions! Science isn’t about the words of “experts”. Science isn’t about pondering and hypothesizing your way to enlightenment. Science is about OBSERVING your way to knowledge. You OBSERVE the world to KNOW the world, Nate.

If you claim that ‘global warming’ since, say, the latter half of the 70s is because of us, the result of an “anthropogenically enhanced GHE”, YOU DO NOT KNOW THE WORLD. It’s that simple. All you have then is your OPINION. Because there are no OBSERVATIONS from the real Earth system that bear out your claim.

Science papers do not just show graphs. They present analysis of them, quantitative analysis, with caveats about error, with theoretical predictions, and comparisons between the two. It is not trivial.

Oh, it’s trivial. And very simple. People who look at a graph, but don’t want to accept what that graph is telling them, will rather start “analysing” it. Meaning, they go about manipulating it (or its central message) using ‘statistical methods’. Massaging the data until it no longer resembles itself. Into compliance …

People who do REAL science, however, look at the graph and draw their (qualitative) conclusions based on that. If the graph in question contains all the available data, that is.

If you have all the available data, Nate, you do NOT have to model or perform various statistical analysis methods on it in order to find out what it REALLY says.

The idea of the “enhanced GHE” specifically postulates a warming mechanism (the raising of Earth’s effective radiating level (ERL) to space, +Z_e) whereby the total all-sky OLR at the ToA (OLR T_e, Earth’s effective radiating temperature) will trend systematically and progressively DOWN over time relative to all altitude-specific temperatures from the tropopause down, specifically the T_tropo (like the TLT), the troposphere being the source, after all, of ~85% of the final thermal emission flux from Earth to space (the total all-sky OLR flux at the ToA).

Now, do we observe anything like this in this graph? Do we see a “systematic and progressive decline over time” in the red T_e (OLR) curve “relative to” the blue T_tropo (TLT) curve?

No. You need to trust your eyes, Nate. Do you see a gradually widening divergence from 2000 to 2017 between the mean levels of the two curves in this graph?

Inside those two bright-green ellipses, what do you see? Is the blue curve significantly higher above the red curve on average inside the second one than inside the first one? No. They simply fluctuate around each other. Always joining back up. There’s naturally a lot of noise in between, mostly connected to the ENSO process, but the mean levels of the two plotted variables are clearly tightly tracking each other over time.

If you start out with a La Nina and end with an El Nino, the linear trend will be higher than if you don’t. IOW, the noise directly affects your trend. You need to look past the noise, Nate. JUST LOOK AT THE DATA! And UNDERSTAND what the data is showing you, what variables you are in fact plotting and looking at. Understand the processes behind.

That’s all you need. You don’t need any statistical tools beyond the plotting, if you have all the data, eyes in your head, and an understanding of the physical phenomena being plotted.

If you don’t LIKE what the data shows you in plain sight, THAT’S when you start manipulating it (or its central message). Focusing on ‘linear trends’ is one such method, very popular indeed in “climate circles”.

RSS has a very different slope from UAH (yes, I know, upward).

Again, it all happens within the 1999-2003 segment. There is no gradual divergence between the two from 1979 to 2018.

I don’t understand why anyone would expect to SEE a reduction in OLR as a result of an enhanced GHE.

*Sigh*

Pay attention, Snape!

No one is saying we expect to see a reduction in OLR as a result of an enhanced “GHE” (that is, except “Mainstream Climate Science (MCS)” and its models *).

What we expect to see is a reduction in OLR RELATIVE TO tropospheric temps (in fact, relative to all altitude-specific temps from the tropopause down).

This IS how the postulated “greenhouse” warming mechanism is supposed to work, after all. You raise Earth’s Z_e and force all altitude-specific temps from the tropopause down (principally, the T_tropo, like TLT or TMT) up. You thus AVOID raising Earth’s T_e. That’s the whole point. T_s and T_tropo go up, and T_e remains the same. BECAUSE the Z_e is higher.

* In order to open up a positive radiative imbalance (net flux) at the ToA to create warming below, you need to EITHER increase the heat IN (+ASR) or you need to reduce the heat OUT (-OLR). MCS and its models assumes (and thus claims) the LATTER to have happened, to be the cause of today’s positive imbalance at the ToA.

If you refuse (like the MCS does) to grant that the solar heat input to Earth (ASR) has increased in the least over its ‘base level’ 60-140 hundred years back, then, in order to explain a positive (energy-accumulating, warming) radiative imbalance at the ToA, you will HAVE TO expect that the OLR is much reduced. And that is exactly what the MCS and its models expect and assume:https://okulaer.wordpress.com/2018/03/24/the-data-supplementary-discussions/ (Part II)

Kristian, you completely avoided, or more likely didn’t understand what I wrote. No surprise there!

Playing word games with the opening paragraph doesn’t count:

First disagreeing, “No one is saying we expect to see a reduction in OLR as a result of an enhanced GHE”

Then agreeing:

“(that is, except Mainstream Climate Science (MCS) and its models *)”

*********

“What we expect to see is a reduction in OLR RELATIVE TO tropospheric temps”

Not me. I would expect to see an increase in backradiation and surface temps as a result of reduced OLR. I would not, however, expect to SEE that reduction:

“Measure the OLR emitted from a white t-shirt that a person is wearing. Then have the person put on another layer and wait until he has reached a steady (higher) temperature. Now measure the OLR again, it should, in theory, be the same as before.

As expected a reduction in OLR caused the person to get warmer. Also as expected that reduction was never observed.”

More to the point, I would expect an increase in backradiation to decrease OLR at the TOA. I would not expect that decrease to ever be measurable, as there is no discrete event from which to compare a starting value and an end value.

They show OLR data from 1979 to 2010 for the Tropics. And over that period the trend certainly looks flat, or slightly decreasing.

That’s because they include the Nimbus data (green dashed curve), which is NOT directly compatible with the ERBS+CERES data.

There is no physical explanation, after all, as to why the circumglobal tropical OLR should drop by almost 2 W/m^2 (!) from 1979 to 1986, completely and utterly at odds with the no-overall-change in the tropical tropospheric temperature anomaly over that same period, while, during the following 30+ years (with the ERBS (1985-1999) and then the CERES (2000-) data) the OLR suddenly goes on to simply track the very same tropospheric temps perfectly, rising by ~1 W/m^2 as a result:https://okulaer.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/loeb-et-al-2012-vs-uahv6-tlt-trop.png

You see how the OLR data before the 1985 stitch is still covarying tightly with the TLT data (just as it does after the stitch), only at a considerably higher mean level. Which should give you pause for thought.

What if we simply adjusted the pre-1985-data-gap segment of the red OLR curve down, en bloc? What would we see?

However, this procedure isn’t really necessary at all. We don’t need, after all, to look at the data prior to 1985 in this case. Based on the global OHC data, the Earth system fluctuated around a neutral net flux at the ToA all the way from 1977 to 1988. There simply was no systematically positive radiative imbalance at the ToA between 1977 and 1988-89 to make energy accumulate overall within the Earth system during this time.

Which is another way of saying that the huge drop in OLR from the late 70s to the mid 80s, as suggested by the green Nimbus curve in Loeb et al.’s Fig.1b, is clearly spurious and not real.

As for 60N to 60S you made a significant adjustment in OLR data after 2000, it seems, in order to match LT temperature behavior.

Say what!? I haven’t adjusted the OLR data after 2000 at all! What are you talking about?

What I have done is conduct the exact same procedure on the 60-60 data as I did with the 20-20 data – I have used other relevant datasets to calibrate the pre-2000 and the post-2000 segments of the composite ERBS+CERES curve across the small data gap between them. And it fits perfectly well. With the HIRS data. With the ISCCP FD data. And with the TLT data. Did you even bother to read what I wrote about this particular calibrating procedure in the post I linked to? It’s not like I adjusted at random, Nate.

“Science papers do not just show graphs. They present analysis of them, quantitative analysis, with caveats about error, with theoretical predictions, and comparisons between the two. It is not trivial.
Oh, its trivial. And very simple. People who look at a graph, but dont want to accept what that graph is telling them, will rather start analysing it. Meaning, they go about manipulating it (or its central message) using statistical methods.”

I did some analysis of the data for you, to test your ideas, and surprisingly, you still have not responded to it. I would think it would be of interest.

1. You start with your premise “So could we possibly merge our two OLR datasets (ERBS & CERES) by simply letting them track Ttropo (as represented by UAHv6 TLT) all the way from 1985 to 2017?

Lets try it.”

Then all adjustments you make after that turn out to make this occur. You mention trying to avoid confirmation bias, which is admirable, but it seems clear that you have not avoided it.

2. I may have missed it, but I dont see in the published literature, the same offset you give to the post 2000 data, in order to try to ‘match’ it up with pre 2000 data. I havent seen any plots like yours showing global OLR from 1985-2016.

3. In the literature, the emphasis is that the data revisions continue to produce significant offsets from previous versions. Ie these offsets are not well pinned down. That is why the CERES experts are not deriving strong conclusions about long-term climate-related trends in the data as I think you are.

4. The offset you give to the post 2000 data adds ~ 1W/m^2 to OLR for the entire post 2000 period relative to the 1990s. This is extremely unlikely to be correct. This is large enough that it should produce a significant NET loss of OHC for 16 y. While we know that during this period, the there has been a a NET gain of 0.6W/m^2 in OHC.

5. There is no such post 2000 offset shown in Loeb 2016. The OLR anomaly hovers around 0.

1. You start with your premise “So could we possibly merge our two OLR datasets (ERBS & CERES) by simply letting them track T_tropo (as represented by UAHv6 TLT) all the way from 1985 to 2017?

Lets try it.”

Then all adjustments you make after that turn out to make this occur. You mention trying to avoid confirmation bias, which is admirable, but it seems clear that you have not avoided it.

This is too silly. First, if you noticed, Nate, I followed the exact same testing procedure to produce the the near-global composite as I did with the tropical one. And as you might remember, the tropical one was verified by Loeb et al., 2012.

Second, I started out by adjusting the composite OLR data series to match the T_tropo (UAHv6 TLT data series) for a very good reason:“We know what happens within those two consecutive timespans, covered by each radiation flux dataset separately and in succession. That’s really an open-and-shut case. The persisting pattern is unmistakable, undeniable.

The only thing remaining, then, in order to settle this matter once and for all, is to find out what happens across the small (five-month) gap between our two radiation flux datasets. From Oct’99 to Feb’00. How do we merge them, stitch them together into one single record? How do we properly calibrate the one to the other?

Watch how the average all-sky OLR at the ToA is essentially a direct radiative expression (effect) of tropospheric temps. Which also makes perfect sense theoretically, considering how, on average, probably at least 85% of Earth’s total OLR to space derives from thermally induced IR emission events occurring in the troposphere.

OLR and TLT mean levels track each other tightly both within the ERBS era (1985-1999, 15 years) and the CERES era (2000-2017, 18 years). Saying that the OLR mean level will most likely follow the TLT mean level also ACROSS the five-month data gap between the two segments is a pretty fair first assumption to make.

However, I specifically do NOT let the TLT data validate the OLR data stitch from 1999 to 2000, Nate. Strange you didn’t notice what I did.

I explained it like this:“The pretty tight correlation seen between tropospheric temperature and top-of-atmosphere thermal emission flux in Figs.19 and 21 definitely seems convincing in itself. However, we still do need to find independent support for the relative accuracy (and appropriateness) of our applied calibration of mean levels across the 1999-2000 gap between the ERBS and CERES datasets. Otherwise, all we’ve potentially got on our hands is a confirmation-biased curve-fitting exercise.

So what can we do to find out how good they are?

Well, we can use other available datasets quantifying that very same parameter, the total (full-spectrum) All-Sky OLR at the ToA, and which specifically and crucially span the 1999-2000 ERBS-CERES data gap, the one to calibrate the mean levels across. Like NOAA’s HIRS (“High-Resolution Infrared Radiation Sounder”) record and NASA’s ISCCP FD (“International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project, Flux Data”).”

I then proceed to check the fit between the TLT-adjusted calibration of our two radiation flux datasets across that 1999-2000 data gap, in the tropics and near-globally, AND those two separate radiation flux datasets (HIRS and ISCCP FD).

How did you manage to miss that whole thing?

2. I may have missed it, but I dont see in the published literature, the same offset you give to the post 2000 data, in order to try to ‘match’ it up with pre 2000 data. I havent seen any plots like yours showing global OLR from 1985-2016.

Exactly! Because no one else has done it! It hasn’t been done. Even Loeb et al., 2012, make no attempt at correlating their adjusted OLR composite graph with tropospheric temps.

Go figure, right? We might BOTH wonder why …

3. In the literature, the emphasis is that the data revisions continue to produce significant offsets from previous versions. Ie these offsets are not well pinned down. That is why the CERES experts are not deriving strong conclusions about long-term climate-related trends in the data as I think you are.

Don’t even try, Nate. There is very little change (hardly significant) in the All-Sky OLR flux anomaly curve between different editions of the CERES EBAF.

Don’t make me quote Dr. Festinger again.

It is soo obvious that you simply cannot get yourself to accept these data and the implications of these plots. So you HAVE TO spend all your time and energy coming up with different ways to justify to yourself dismissing them rather than actually facing up to them.

4. The offset you give to the post 2000 data adds ~ 1W/m^2 to OLR for the entire post 2000 period relative to the 1990s. This is extremely unlikely to be correct.

Why!? It is no more unlikely to be correct than the rise in temperatures between the 90s and the 00s.

Once again, I didn’t use the TLT data to validate my mean level calibration offset. I used OTHER RADIATION FLUX DATASETS ACTUALLY SPANNING THE FIVE-MONTH DATA GAP BETWEEN THE ERBS AND THE CERES.

How hard is this to comprehend?

This is large enough that it should produce a significant NET loss of OHC for 16 y.

Huh? Why? The OLR flux is only one half of the NET flux, the other one being the ASR flux. The OHC responds to the NET flux (ASR – OLR), not to OLR alone.

5. There is no such post 2000 offset shown in Loeb 2016. The OLR anomaly hovers around 0.

Er, yes. That’s because the normal period of the CERES data is 2005-2015, not 1985-1999. There is no CERES data from the 1985-1999 period, after all.

“no one else has done it! It hasnt been done. Even Loeb et al., 2012, make no attempt at correlating their adjusted OLR composite graph with tropospheric temps.”

Indeed, because as several authors have noted, inluding Loeb, the accuracy of OLR absolute level is pretty bad. That is why they had to use OHC changes to calibrate the CERES data. It makes perfect sense that would not know the relative offset between the 2 sets to an accuracy of 1 W/m2. That is why they dont try to make a 33 y series, and find an accurate trend.

You very clearly had to choose an offset. Your choice makes the 80s-90s hover around 0., while the 2000-now hovers around 1 W/m2. Your whole conclusion rests on this choice you made, motivated by your hypothesis. Not very covincing then. You attempt to justify but, meh..

The tight correlation you see is driven by ENSO. And it makes sense for short times. OLR wants to return to equil. That does imply correlation on long times, decades.

I would say the safest thing is to test the 2 sets seperately for trends.

The SW. Is there good evidence it jumped a whole~ 1.5 W/m2 and stayed for last 18 y?

“no one else has done it! It hasnt been done. Even Loeb et al., 2012, make no attempt at correlating their adjusted OLR composite graph with tropospheric temps.”

Indeed, because as several authors have noted, inluding Loeb, the accuracy of OLR absolute level is pretty bad.

Hahaha! I just knew you would pounce on this point specifically! As if it were itself a counterargument against my results …!

Nate, READ CAREFULLY:

The ‘accuracy’ of the absolute OLR flux value is not very good. No one is trying to argue it is. Everybody knows it isn’t.

However, the determination of the OLR flux ANOMALY is very ‘precise’, and the tracking of it over time very ‘stable’ indeed. And THAT is what I’m using, Nate. Anomalies. As you know perfectly well. Problems with accuracy have no bearing on studies working only with precision and stability!

The same goes for the average absolute value of the global surface temperature, after all. No one really knows what it is. There are guesses, of course. But historically, estimates fluctuate wildly, at least by a couple of Kelvin.

This is completely irrelevant, though, when all you do is track the temperature ANOMALIES over time! Then it’s all about precision and stability.

It makes perfect sense that would not know the relative offset between the 2 sets to an accuracy of 1 W/m2. That is why they dont try to make a 33 y series, and find an accurate trend.

Strange, because that’s EXACTLY what Loeb et al., 2012, did in their Fig.1b. They found a way to anchor the offset between the ERBS and the CERES OLR anomaly data across the 1999-2000 data gap. Forgot that already …?

You very clearly had to choose an offset. Your choice makes the 80s-90s hover around 0., while the 2000-now hovers around 1 W/m2. Your whole conclusion rests on this choice you made, motivated by your hypothesis. Not very covincing then.

*Facepalm*

I asked you to stop acting like an obstinate child, Nate. Turning a deaf ear, I see …

I just explained this to you, in the post above. You can easily follow the procedure yourself. In the link to my blog. And yet here you are, simply restating your original accusation! Which, as I explained, was a direct misrepresentation of what I actually did. Something I think you’re very much aware of.

What is it with you CO2 warmists and your pathological aversion to observational data that go against your belief system!!?

You attempt to justify but, meh..

Q.E.D.

Do you have anything more to offer at this point besides trolling? Because that’s what you’re doing now, Nate. You’re being a troll …

It seems to me as time goes on ECS keeps getting smaller. Theres no doubt H2O, CH4, CO2 and other gases absorb IR and have some effect, but what magnitude? As a thought experiment, turn off the sun and condense the atmosphere to liquids – does 400 ppm CO2 matter? Now turn the sun back on – the oceans and atmosphere return. Its the sun that dictates the state of the atmosphere and hydrosphere. My suspicion is that in the end ECS will be set near zero because the concept of E in a sol-driven climate system is theoretical.

“As a thought experiment, turn off the sun and condense the atmosphere to liquids does 400 ppm CO2 matter? Now turn the sun back on the oceans and atmosphere return. ”

If turn off sun, how much snow falls in Kansas?
If turn off sun, the tropical ocean heat engine is turned off.
Day becomes night, and night does not end.
What happens in first 24 hours?
In tropics there isn’t much temperature difference of day and night. If sun turned off during tropical night, the slow drop in temperature continues. If during morning time, the daily cloud creation does not happen. And that is part of tropical heat engine going off line. Whereas ocean currents partially driven by cold polar waters falling and one would getting more cold water rather than less. Or the massive gulf stream would not be affected much in merely 24 hours. Though as goes towards poles, it should be creating more fog than normally does.

I tend to think warmed land areas acting like big pumps, and lacking sunlight, these pumps stop or perhaps reverse. And on continental scale, the cold air mass pools and invades the warmer ocean, though could require more than 24 hours.

What happens with higher water vapor of tropics within the 24 hours. Roughly, does slowly fade away or does dump out fairly quickly (and suck heat out of tropics).
Another thing, within 24 hours, will anywhere get colder than say -100 C. Or how long before most places reach their coldest temperature ever recorded for that location?

It does, of course. The Sun is “turned off” each night. The temperature falls. At the poles, the Sun is on for six months, off for six months. Remains cold. Little GHE to be seen, just as little GHE to be seen in arid tropical deserts – very little of that supposedly important greenhouse gas H2O. Seems to get hotter in spite of the GHE, not because of it!

You are a great one for hypotheticals – unless someone else wants to use them, it seems.

In particular, Dessler et al claim that global average surface temperature anomalies are not indicative of anomalies in outgoing energy (either of terrestrial origin or reflected solar energy).

“We find that this assumption is not well supported over the historical temperature record in the model ensemble or more recent satellite observations. We find that framing energy balance in terms of 500 hPa tropical temperature better describes the planet’s energy balance.”

Parameterizations and approximations are useful at times, using them to show that others are wrong is never useful. Fundamental approaches are always the best. Planck Law: 3 constants of nature. You can’t get much more fundamental than that.

Correct me if I’m wrong DA, your statement that “science as complex as climate science” must be a mistake. I’ve read some of your comments and I inferred from them you believe the only thing controlling climate is Human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere.

Are you now claiming something different that in fact the climate is a complex system and the CO2 contributed to the atmosphere by Humans is not the sole contributor to “Climate Change”?

Brad: I think you misread me. Of course, CO2 isn’t the only contributor to AGW. Other GHGs are also increasing, like methane and nitrous oxide. Land use changed lead to increases in CO2. Aerosols from human pollution are having a cooling effect. Brown carbon, etc……..

“What’s wrong: There’s a very poor attempt in Sect. 7a of Lewis and Curry to try to argue pattern effect doesn’t impact their result. They analyze one ensemble member (the historical record) and claim that ALL ensemble members will therefore give us the same result.”

The thing of course is that the historic record is the one. As the paper more generally shows Dessler et al take the view that GCMs (and more particularly their GCM) can constrain nature. The more usual approach if their are contradictions between models and more empirical methods is to go looking for the reason, with problems in the models being higher in the list.

In my book if the historical record fits a theory then the onus is on the modeller to demonstrate its not the models that have the problem.

It seems that we can’t predict solar activity, though we might have some good guesses in terms of say, next 10 years (and getting worst the further into future).

It seems the long term trend of our Holocene, is gradual cooling, though seems to be a slow (and interrupted) rise sea levels over last couple thousand years. And over the thousands of years, we have had centuries of cooling and warming. And the Little Ice Age may have been shorter, or longer lasting depending upon who you ask. It appears to me, at so far out present warming or recovery from LIA has been rather brief as compared to other warmer periods. And there no record of rapid cooling from warmed periods (though a large volcanic event may made determining when the LIA began confusing/debatable).

It seems that a greater understanding of Milankovitch theory would be helpful in predicting decades into the future.

In our current icebox climate, the most common condition is the glacial period.
One could think of recovery as returning to glacial conditions.
But planet Earth most common condition is not an icebox climate. The Earth has had periods of icebox and hothouse climates lasting for millions of years, but these are extremes conditions/states and are not common.
As I said before, I doubt Earth has had snow ball climate, rather I think we about as close to snowball climate as earth has ever been in.
I believe the tropics has always remained warm and we would not have tropical plants if it was otherwise.

Anyhow when say recovery, I mean returning to the warmer periods of our Holocene period or to conditions in other warmer periods of other interglacial periods which were even warmer then the Holocene climate optimal.
Though I am normally thinking of recovery in regard to short term recovery from the coldest period of our interglacial period- which was the Little Ice Age.
And I sure if going get as warm as past interglacial periods.

“The main evidence of the severity of these events comes from geological evidence of glaciers near the equator. If ice on land made it down to the low latitudes, as the argument goes, then it must have gone everywhere.”

Not good evidence, as you know we currently have glaciers in the tropics.
Different topography could allow glaciers to flow so as to reach tropical waters.

They also say 1/2 the oceans were not ice free and that also is not saying much.
Even with our current land configuration, I don’t think you can rule out, that during our glacial periods, 1/2 ocean were not ice free.

But with a different land configuration, one could have more ocean area with sea ice during winter. If arctic ocean was larger (move Greenland further south, remove Alaska, and Canadian islands and other tweeting- and keep in mind, US great lakes are currently frozen).

For example, there is plenty of evidence that Northern Hemisphere glaciers advanced during the LIA, an indicator of lower temperatures. Is there evidence of comparable glacial retreat in the Southern Hemisphere, suggesting average global temperature may have been in balance?

Today the arctic is warming much faster than say the tropics. Is this what they mean by not “globally synchronous”? Or are they saying average global temperature remained steady throughout the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age?

— David Appell says:
April 26, 2018 at 5:18 PM
gbaikie says:
Not good evidence, as you know we currently have glaciers in the tropics.

How does the area of tropical glaciers now compare to their area then? Isnt that more important than just their existence?—

Currently, we have 20% of tropics which is land.
One needs land to have glaciers.

Due to area of tropics it is unlikely there was more than 50% of tropics being land area, but likely to have more than 20%.

Or tropics is 40% of 510 million square km which is 210 million square km.
Land: 30% of 510 is 153 million square km and unlikely all land would only be in tropics.

30% of Earth has been land area for billions of years, and if anything, we currently have a higher amount land area than less, as it’s thought continent land is increasing (more granite being made).

So could have more 20% tropical land, and thereby could greater chance of having larger glaciers in tropics.
Now, it’s been discussed that our tropical glacial have skrunk, and not sure how big they become during glacial periods, but we can assume they aren’t at the largest extent at the present time.

So tropics has greatest amount rainfall, having air too cold, inhibts snowfall. Rain can destroy snow (rapidly). And we are talking flow glaciers to ocean.
It seems quite possible to me, to have huge flows of glacial ice in tropics.
Doesn’t AL Gore dream of massive glacial flows, it seems one could have a rapid build up for couple centuries, climate change happens, and all the glacial ice which has built up, dumps into the ocean.
Or glacial ice all emptying into ocean seems more likely in the tropics, as compared to Greenland or Antarctica.

“David Appell says:
April 26, 2018 at 9:13 PM
gbaikie: you still didnt answer this how does the area of tropical glaciers now compare to the area during the snowball earth episodes? ”

As said, one could have more land near tropics, ,and more land allows more glaciers.
And land near tropics could be at higher elevation.
And global temperatures could even be warmer than then 15 C and you have much larger glaciers in the tropics.
And they could even be more instable, growing very quickly and dying quickly (or not).
We don’t know much about the lands hundreds of millions of years ago, was there super continent and was it, something like:

“Pannotia (from Greek: pan-, “all”, -ntos, “south”; meaning “all southern land”), also known as Vendian supercontinent, Greater Gondwana, and the Pan-African supercontinent, was a relatively short-lived Neoproterozoic supercontinent that formed at the end of the Precambrian during the Pan-African orogeny (650500 Ma) and broke apart 560 Ma with the opening of the Iapetus Ocean.”And

With superintendents apparently one has deeper oceans or lower sea level (and lots of glaciation – which lower sea level also) or continents could tend to have a higher average elevation. Though one could have less or more mountain building.
Anyhow, looking at map and having most land in southern hemisphere and fair amount near equator, it seems the land temperature would be quite cold, and ocean temperature, quite warm.
One would not have a northern polar ice cap, but you could have northern polar ocean region in winter get cold. So cooler water could fall and get the warmed tropical water replacing it.
It also looks like one get something like El Nino type oceanic movement.
So average land temperature could be lower than our land temperature and the ocean could be warmer than our ocean.

Unfortunately that wont stop the AGW crowd from claiming it does exist. Its very difficult, if not impossible, to prove something does not exist. In this way AGW is no different than Big Foot, the Loch Ness Monster and Space Aliens.

The electron magnetic moment has been measured to an accuracy of 7.6 parts in 10^13, I believe.

Here’s a fairly recent relevant value –

g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 86(57)

This is more accurate than measuring the distance between NewYork and San Francisco to better than the thickness of a human hair. A pseudoscientist would be happy with a value between 0 and 3, no doubt, as long as the consensus was highly confident of the result.

The theoretical prediction of the magnetic moment still differs from the experimental results to date. Real scientists need to find out why, rather than dismissing the difference as so small as to be insignificant!

Compare this to the supposed ECS. The IPCC accepts that the atmosphere behaves chaotically, and therefore the concept of equilibrium is a misnomer. Further, climate is the average of weather, so referring to a climate equilibrium is meaningless. Lastly, sensitivity is another meaningless term. Weather (or its average, climate), is supposedly sensitive in some neasuarable fashion, to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere!

Fantasy piled upon ignorance. Science to some, obviously. Not to any rational person.

It should be remembered that water vapor is a greenhouse gas. The significance of electromagnetic radiation increases on the border between the troposphere and the stratosphere. In the lower atmosphere, the temperature is regulated by convection.

Long term temperature trends over the past century(s)are probably “contaminated” with natural decennial (and longer) scale trend COMPONENTS that are not accounted in the models, or solely by CO2 warming. This is the problem with ANY attempt to determine sensitivity using decennial scale (or larger) trends. In particular,the sensitivity results of Otto and Curry and Lewis will be too low if there has been a natural unaccounted cooling COMPONENT during the last half of the 20th century. Dr Spencer has noted recently the effect of such a warming COMPONENT on determinations of sensitivity (and indicating that sensitivity is lower than commonly perceived), but does not seem to acknowledge the possibility of a cooling COMPONENT trend instead (which is what I tend to believe–for reasons not addressed here).
Secondly Dr.Spencer simplistically denigrates the Modeling/Simulation programs by implying it’s mostly guess work. The models reproduce the global daily and seasonal temperature and humidity variation anomalies (hour by hour, day by day over the entire year, at all global locations!) with a Pearson’s correlation coefficient of about 0.8 (if memory serves). And these are of large signal, non-linear mechanisms!! This is an astonishing accomplishment, which Dr. Spencer simply ignores. This does not necessarily prove they must be correct over longer periods, but the sensitivity mechanisms must be pretty well modeled.
Dr. Spencer wants desperately to believe the sensitivity is low (which is understandable…who would not), and skews his analysis and criticism (unconsciously), to this end…IMO.

I don’t know..but I suspect cloud formation, and resultant solar shortwave reflection, is VERY sensitive to many parameters , and thus not very stable. The climate then requires a significant nonlinear shift to compensate back to stability. Thus the climate can wander around a climatic set point quite a bit. And the capacitance of the ocean, coupled with corresponding changes in ocean current patterns can cause this wandering to exhibit a very low frequency noise character (i.e. time scales even in centuries).

But these subtle forcing mechanisms (which are not well understood or modeled) occur in addition to the more robust forcings (including CO2 forcing) that are better understood (and verified) in current model simulations .
Thanks for your inquiry…I wish that Dr. Spencer would respond as well.

By saying “I don’t know (how)” I believe your question has already been answered (don’t be snarky), however hypothesis is a part of science. Can you prove my suspicions are incorrect?

But we can say the natural and unmodeled variations do occur.
Most recent pier reviewed papers that i have seen use world wide proxy data to verify that the roman warming ,medieval warming and “little ice-age” cooling periods were indeed world wide phenomenon, effecting the global temperature average, and not well model or simulated. Furthermore, even if these were more local phenomenon, they are still not well modeled or simulated, indicating that there are natural phenomena not well modeled.

Most recent pier reviewed papers that i have seen use world wide proxy data to verify that the roman warming ,medieval warming and little ice-age cooling periods were indeed world wide phenomenon, effecting the global temperature average,

Although, regrettably , i do not generally record the papers i have come across on the web (as this is not my field of study)
I know that i have seen none that provide evidence the roman warming ,medieval warming and little ice-age cooling periods
were only regional phenomenon, while several show the warmings to be world wide.
And almost none that would deny their existence altogether.
The models simulate none of it…which is the point.
Do you have evidence otherwise?

My reading of the data from your source (Fig S5) is that
1)over any 30 year period one may see between .1 and .2 C variation of global area averaged temperature…
2)over any 60 year period one may see between .1 and .2 C variation of global area averaged temperature…

especially prior to 1400 (and after the end of the little ice age period??)

And greater than .2 C between the peak of the medieval warm period(1000-1200) and low of little ice age period.

Regionally the variations are of course much greater.

The comments about multi-decadal (ie over a 30 year period) synchronicity are immaterial
because both higher freq variation and lower freq natural variations occur simultaneously. One would not necessarily expect to see exact correlation every where at once in any 30 year period.

Admittedly the medieval warm period does NOT seem to differ from the previous 1000 years, or be as distinct (as a global average) as i would have thought..at least from this data.
And admittedly the period of 1400 through 1700 was relatively quiet, from this data.

Clearly, from this data, the medieval warm period was ~.2 C warmer than the little ice age cooling period even on an area weighted global average.

According to this data the variation was .2 C between 1965 and 1995 (which significantly differs from the thermometric record??), which was the the period of greatest co2 and temperature rise recently. Natural variations on the order of even .1 to .2 degrees would surely be significant in the calculations of sensitivity based on temperature trends over this and earlier periods…
which was the assertion I made in my original post,ie

“Long term temperature trends over the past century(s)are probably contaminated with natural decennial (and longer) scale trend COMPONENTS that are not accounted in the models, or solely by CO2 warming. This is the problem with ANY attempt to determine sensitivity using decennial scale (or larger) trends. ”

entropic…”There is a denier meme that global warming is due to gravitational potential energy released by a shrinking atmosphere”.

Makes far more sense than the GHE and Feynman agreed with it. Somehow, I have more faith in Feynman’s agreement than all the uber-alarmists like Gavin Schmidt put together.

I have already shown with a simplified Ideal Gas Equation and Dalton’s Law, that CO2, based on its percent mass, should contribute warming of no more than 0.04C for a 1C rise in temperature. 99% of the warming MUST come from nitrogen and oxygen.

Gordon Robertson says:entropicThere is a denier meme that global warming is due to gravitational potential energy released by a shrinking atmosphere.
“Makes far more sense than the GHE and Feynman agreed with it.”

Wrong — GR does not understand the GHE, or the evidence for it.

And, no, Feynman didn’t agree. I have never seen one iota of evidence that he thought about climate science. Almost no scientists did then.

from the article: “The carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by industry’s burning of coal and oil–more than half of it during the last generation–may have changed the atmosphere’s composition sufficiently to account for a general warming of the world by about one degree Fahrenheit.”

Since the start of the industrial revolution, mankind has been burning fossil fuel (coal, oil, etc.) and adding its carbon to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. In 50 years or so this process, says Director Roger Revelle of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, may have a violent effect on the earths climate

“Dr. Revelle has not reached the stage of warning against this catastrophe, but he and other geophysicists intend to keep watching and recording. During the International Geophysical Year (1957-58), teams of scientists will take inventory of the earths CO2 and observe how it shifts between air and sea. They will try to find out whether the CO2 blanket has been growing thicker, and what the effect has been. When all their data have been studied, they may be able to predict whether mans factory chimneys and auto exhausts will eventually cause salt water to flow in the streets of New York and London.

— “One Big Greenhouse,” Time magazine, May 28, 1956.

1957
“Carbon Dioxide Exchange Between Atmosphere and Ocean and the Question of an Increase of Atmospheric CO2 During the Past Decades,” Roger Revelle and Hans E. Suess, Tellus 9 pp 18-27 (1957).

Says the accumulation of CO2 “may become significant during future decades if industrial fuel consumption continues to rise exponentially.” The paper concludes, “Human beings are now carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future.”

1958
“Distribution of Matter in the Sea and Atmosphere: Changes in the Carbon Dioxide Content of the Atmosphere and Sea due to Fossil Fuel Combustion,” Bert Bolin and Erik Eriksson (1958). In The Atmosphere and the Sea in Motion: Scientific Contributions to the Rossby Memorial Volume (ed. B. Bolin), pp. 130-142. Rockefeller Institute Press, New York.

1959

Edward Teller, at a November 1959 conference on the centennial of the American oil industry at Columbia University in New York City, via The Guardian, 1/1/2018:

Carbon dioxide has a strange property. It transmits visible light but it absorbs the infrared radiation which is emitted from the earth. Its presence in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect [….] It has been calculated that a temperature rise corresponding to a 10 per cent increase in carbon dioxide will be sufficient to melt the icecap and submerge New York. All the coastal cities would be covered, and since a considerable percentage of the human race lives in coastal regions, I think that this chemical contamination is more serious than most people tend to believe.

Feynman lectured and wrote about meteorology, weather and atmospheric physics, amongst other things. You are correct that he didn’t refer to climate science – there is no such thing. Climate is a name for the averages of other numbers. No science there, just basic arithmetic.

You follow this up with a steaming pile of assumptions and speculations by others. Worthless rubbish – not even a testable GHE hypothesis to be seen!

You obviously believe that the science is “settled”, and that the “debate” is over. Good luck with that!

Was your curiosity satisfied? Do you spend much time trying to sucker me?

How is that working out for you?

By the way, I believe the authors name is James Blish, rather than James Blush.

There is denier meme that a GHE exists. These stupid and ignorant deniers also seem to deny that the climate has always changed – being the average of weather, and weather always changes, of course. Even the IPCC accepts this.

Maybe you could help Dr Spencer out, and find the useful description of the GHE (which he is sure exists). Im sure it doesnt, so you would be employing your time to advantage, if your aim in life is to sucker me. Good luck.

I would say the more obvious effect is spurious UHI warming on land-based thermometers, which is strongest at low population densities. This effect is easily seen in everyones car thermometers now as they commute in and out of towns, but there is no easy way to quantify the effect on “global warming” measurements over, say, the last 100 years.

*

What an amazing comment!

A few years ago, Anthony Watts filled pages and pages on his blog with hints on UHI in towns and told us only rural weather station sites would be acceptable.

This has been debunked especially by Berkeley Earth.

Did I really understand that now suddenly UHI is detected by ‘land-based thermometers’?

I extracted out of the GHCN V3 station inventory file
– urban sites with high nightlight
– rural sites with low nightlight
and generated time series out of the GHCN unadjusted dataset
– for all stations
– for the urban and rural sites
and in addition
– for GISS land-only
during 1880-2017.

We all can see that the relation between urban and rural sites on the one hand, and the GISS record on the other hand is quite weak, due to heavy homogenisation.

And we see also that heating effects are as good visible in the australian outback (in february 1992, 39 of the 50 highest temperatures were measured there) as they might be in Alabama’s rural corners with urban look.

In the early 2000s, when warming trends were large, A.Watts spend a lot of time trying to disprove weather stations — the surfacestations.org project and all.

Then, when in the late ’00s it looked like there was a hiatus, he gave all that up and was happy to accept the data as given.

Now post-Karl 2015 there was no hiatus — are we back to questioning surface stations?

Watts’ conclusions certainly aren’t based on science.

Didn’t Watts et al (including John Christy) submit a paper in about 2012 or 2013 about the lack of warming in the USA48? It was even noted as a press release by the AGU at their fall meeting in 2011 or 2012 or maybe ’13, IIRC.

Yet that paper has never appeared in a journal.

I wonder why?

You can’t trust A.Watts, who has admitted to taking money from the Heartland Institute, the premier denial organization in the US:

Does that mean the old data was worse than it was? Has somebody changed the historical observations to make them better, perhaps?

I suppose that if you actually had a testable GHE hypothesis, you could see how well the actual data supported it – but you haven’t, so the recorded historical data is no better, and no worse than it has always been.

Roy…”Now the question is: At what point will the IPCC (or, maybe I should say climate modelers) start recognizing that their models are probably too sensitive?”

That should have been addressed following AR5 (2012) when the IPCC admitted there had been no significant warming during the 15 year period from 1998 – 2012. They called it a warming hiatus. Rather than stepping back to re-assess, the IPCC went forward, raising their confidence level from 90 to 95% that humans are likely causing the warming,

What warming, they admitted there had been none for 15 years???

It’s plain that the IPCC, run by climate modelers, as Roy pointed out, is not interested in anything other than proof that the warming has anthropogenic origins.

In 1990, the IPCC featured graphs of the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age. They knew about the LIA cooling yet they did not build it into their theory that warming since the Industrial Era has been anthropogenic. Furthermore, when the MBH98 study appeared, the Hockey Stick, the IPCC promoted it, even though it had eradicated the MWP and the LIA.

When the hockey stick fell into disrepute, the IPCC produced a graph in place of the stick, called the spaghetti graph. In that graph, the MWP and LIA are back, yet there is no admission that much of the warming since the LIA is due to a rewarming.

DA…from your first link…”In its report, released on 22 June, the NAS committee more-or-less endorses the work behind the graph”.

‘More or less’ does not mean ‘endorsed’. NAS criticized the hockey stick and stabbed the blade part to death by telling MBH they could not use pine bristlecone for the 20th century. That eliminated the blade.

They told them that their study was invalid prior to 1400 AD. So MBH now has nothing before 1400 and nothing in the 20th century. Somewhere around 1400, MBH used ONE TREE PROXY to cover the entire century.

An expert statistician working parallel with NAS confirmed that their statistical methods were junk.

You assume that “climate science” exists. Name one renowned “climate scientist” – if you can. Not just someone who calls themself a “climate scientist”. Self praise is no recommendation, is it?

Climate is merely the average of weather, isn’t it? What use is endlessly reanalysing historical observations of weather? Do you think it will enable you to predict the future better than real scientists?

What is so special about “climate science”, as opposed to, say, meteorology?

“Climate science” seems to be more closely aligned to astrology – or tea leaf reading, perhaps!

Wednesday, April 25, 2018, 15:06 – Those in the northern tier of the U.S. either graciously accept winter with open arms or drag their feet the entire way. So, for those who would willingly trade in the snow for sand, it’s been a rough season that has been painfully etched into our memories after the ice storm that rolled through the Great Lakes just weeks ago.

“From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47Calso during the global warming era.”

The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998. If someone is tempted to argue that the reason for recent record cooling periods is that global temperatures are getting more volatile, it’s not true. The volatility of monthly global average temperatures since 2000 is only two-thirds what it was from 1880 to 1999.https://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2018/04/24/did_you_know_the_greatest_two-year_global_cooling_event_just_took_place_103243.html

Folks in Ohio are not able to start planting.
Folks in Nebraska are not able to start planting.
Folks in Illinois are not able to start planting.
Folks in North Dakota are not able to start planting.
Folks in South Dakota are not able to start planting.
None of Iowas farmland is ready for planting.https://youtu.be/a3rR7CQe960

There are so many reports this is why I am going with only Dr. Spencer’s data to determine what is happening to global temperatures overall.

It is starting to show (this year) a halt to any further global warming which I expect will turn into global cooling.

Only time will tell.

We are still warm no denying that and I need to start to become more excited at a minimum for global temperatures to fall to at least a 0 deviation from 1980-2010 averages at least that and overall global oceanic temperatures to drop to or below 30 year means. Currently the are +.217c

The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway.

Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared.

Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds.

“Radiative forcing by a climate variable is a change in Earth’s energy balance between incoming solar radiation energy and outgoing thermal IR emission energy when the variable is changed while all other factors are held constant.”

Considering that climate is the average of weather, definitions such as the above are meaningless. Maybe you can produce a better one.

CO2 does not seem to have a “logarithm” amongst its physical properties.

Maybe you left something (or even quite a lot) out of your pointless and irrelevant comment?

Even “forcing” is a climatological nonsense word – but you knew that, I suppose.

Talking about wattages in relation temperature demonstrates ignorance, stupidity, and a highly developed bump of gullibility (for those who believe in phrenology as well as climatology).

Radiation from one square meter of ice at 300 W/m2 cannot be added to that from another square meter to total 600 W, with the assumption that temperatures must be higher as the wattage is higher!

Surrounding a thermometer with 100% CO2 will not increase its temperature, in spite of all your stupid and pointless “formulas” and “equations”.

You are deluded, just like Schmidt, Mann, and the rest of the fumbling bumblers!

If you are going to try to weasel out by saying temperatures are “hotter than they would have been otherwise”, I’ll just point out that all matter is hotter than it would have been, in the absence of external energy sources! Absolute zero is the natural temperature of anything at all, if you remove heat sources.

Retire to your dream world, and sulk, if you wish. You still won’t be able to make thermometers hotter by increasing the amount of CO2 between the Sun and the thermometers. You have possibly noticed that temperatures fall at night – no CO2 heating there, that’s for sure. Have fun!

The energy in thermal radiation from the surface absorbed by CO2 (or any ghg) near ground level is immediately shared with surrounding gas molecules. Subsequent radiation of the absorbed energy is by gas molecules with wavelength and intensity determined by quantum mechanics. The QM calculations made by Hitran are shown at http://i66.tinypic.com/mktz04.jpg. As shown, gas phase radiation at low altitude is essentially all from water vapor molecules.

It’s all consistent with what I mentioned above. The increase of ozone and CO2 in the lower stratosphere (from 10 to 15 km is the stratosphere) in periods of low solar activity will cause significant local cooling, as a result of water vapor escaping into the stratosphere.

Ok, you’re probably right. I don’t get the point of analyzing the energy budget where the air is really thin, such as above the troposphere.

Sort of like if I had a million dollars invested in a particular stock I wouldn’t care much about a $100 investment I had elsewhere…..the smaller investment having little influence on my net worth. Is that a fair analogy?

Except that I think stratospheric CO2 does contribute some to the greenhouse effect, but right now I don’t know how to prove that. But I think it’s clear it does dominate in the polar regions, where the air is so cold there is little water vapor.

But remember, the overlap of the CO2 ab.sorp.tion spectrum and water vapor ab.sorp.tion spectrum (at STP) is not at all 1-1.

La.. Look at the graph more closely. You have covered the wrong wavelengths. My graphs abscissa is wave number, not wave length. Divide 10,000 by either (wave length in microns) to get the other; 10,000/6 micron wavelength = wavenumber 1667. The WV emphasized in your plots is where terrestrial radiation is very low (click my name and see Fig 1). It is the comparatively low intensity at the very right side of Fig 0.5.

La P.. At low altitude, WV overwhelmingly prevails at both abs.orp.tion and emission; thermalization allows all abs.orp.tion to be redirected to WV. At higher altitudes CO2 participates on a more equal footing with the greatly diminished WV. This results in the notch getting partially filled back in at TOA as shown in Fig 1 at http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com.

Sna.. The energy is, of course, the time-integral of the thermal radiation power for any duration. Perhaps you share my dismay that so many folks apparently fail to understand that temperature, an energy thing, is associated with the time-integral of a forcing such as TSI, a power thing.

None of CO2 (or any other ghg) EMITTED energy is shared. Energy ABSORBED by any ghg is immediately shared with surrounding molecules. Relaxation time is a few microseconds, sharing begins in less than 0.0002 microseconds at STP.

Much of this stuff is covered with many reference links in my blog/analysis.

I’m still not following: “None of CO2 (or any other ghg) EMITTED energy is shared.”

A portion of whatever energy CO2 acquires (either through conduction or radiation) is radiated and shared with other GHG’s, is it not? And wouldn’t Nitrogen/Oxygen absorb and emit a tiny, but non-zero fraction?

Sn.. Sorry about that. I am afraid we are bolixed by the ambiguity in words. ’emitted’ means in the form of EMR. Shared means by conduction, i.e. molecules bumping into each other. Of course the energy must first be ab.sorb.ed before it can be ‘shared’.

Thanks, that makes sense. I didn’t realize that in this context “shared” refers specifically to conduction.

BTW, I’ve been wondering what would happen if a planet similar to Earth had an atmosphere consisting of only Oxygen and Nitrogen? Seems like knowing that would shed light on the contributions of GHG’s.

Nitrogen/Oxygen are not significantly radiatively active, i.e. they do not significantly absorb/emit, at wavelenghs associated with terrestrial radiation. They are warmed/cooled by conduction from/to other molecules. At low altitude, CO2 molecules do not have time to emit and Hitran calculates, using quantum mechanics, that at low altitude, essentially all gas molecule emission of EMR is by WV molecules.

Sna.. In N2/O2 atmosphere there would be no water, no clouds so est albedo same as moon = 0.12. Assume no participation by atmosphere and surface emissivity of 1 then average surface temp T = [(1-.12) * 342/5.67E-8]^.25 = 270 K. Huge (60 K ?) day/night range. Not a very friendly place. Lapse rate would be about the same as current adiabatic lapse rate of about -9.8 K/km.

Sorrry, I can’t tell if your calculations included O2/N2 heating by direct contact with the hot daytime surface. This “air” would then have little ability to cool (being a very poor radiator) and would get super hot.

On the flip side, dark half of planet surface would rapidly cool (atmospheric window is wide open).
The hot air would then cool via direct contact with the cold surface.

The two air masses , sunny side and dark side, would convectively mix and of course reach a global average……..perhaps in line with your math.

Sna.. The bottom of the air is always in contact with the surface. A more exact solution is possible…but why? Of course there would be temperature decline with increasing distance from the equator also. A time dependent solution is also possible. My ruff solution is an overall average for a year or so.

To simplify the problem I stipulated “no participation by atmosphere”. Also provided a guestimate of 60 K day/night swing.

The air is not just a poor radiator, it is a zero radiator because that is what was assummed. The bottom of the air would follow the cyclic surface temperature and the lapse rate would be cyclicly distorted accordingly.

That completely avoids the question,
“Any guesses about the energy budget/temperature of an atmosphere with just O2/N2?”

“The bottom of the air is always in contact with the surface.” Of course, just like in the real world. Energy is constantly transferred upwards and circulated through the atmosphere via conduction and convection…..no GHG’s necessary. The intriguing question is how would such an atmosphere cool to space?

Sna.. on average, there is no heat transfer by convection or conduction because the bottom of the air is the same temperature as the surface. The temperature of the bottom of the air is determined by the temperature of the surface. The lapse rate is determined by gravity.

The atmosphere does not cool to space. There are no molecules to significantly radiate at the temperatures involved. It just sits there with its bottom temperature the same as the surface. Since the surface temperature oscillates the bottom of the air oscillates with it and the oscillations damp out with elevation according to the thermal diffusivity but on average, the temperature declines with altitude according to the lapse rate; which is determined by gravity.

I can explain it to you but I cannot understand it for you. If you actually want to understand, I suggest at least a first course in engineering heat transfer analysis.

You’re explanation was very helpful. Why did you assume I don’t agree or understand, I hadn’t even replied yet?

I’ve never had a class in heat transfer analysis, so for me this statement was pure conjecture:

“On the flip side, dark half of planet surface would rapidly cool (atmospheric window is wide open).
The hot air would then cool via direct contact with the cold surface.

The two air masses , sunny side and dark side, would convectively mix and of course reach a global average.”

That matches well with what you just wrote:

“…on average, there is no heat transfer by convection or conduction because the bottom of the air is the same temperature as the surface.”

I understand that lapse rate is determined my gravity, but that in no way prevents LOCAL heat transfer by conduction or convention. We seem to agree that the surface would heat the atmosphere on one side of the planet at the same rate it cools the atmosphere on the other…….so very little net transfer of energy.

I also agree the atmosphere would lose very little energy to space via radiation.

“David poses a gotcha. He includes a statement which ensures there is no answer to his gotcha.”

More than 500 million years ago, is problematic.
“Where do we find the oldest continental rocks and the oldest seafloor?
The oldest continental rocks are found in what we call cratons. A craton is a stable part of the continental lithosphere, which has survived several cycles responsible for the merge and the dislocation of supercontinents.”http://www.earthobservatory.sg/geology/where-do-we-find-oldest-continental-rocks-and-oldest-seafloor
And:
“The oldest seafloor is comparatively very young: about 280 million years old. It is found in the Mediterranean Sea and is a remnant of an ancient ocean that is disappearing between Africa and Europe. “

“Unless the entire globe is warming, there isnt global warming. That means the global surface, the global ocean, ice and sea level. Thats what were seeing today every component of the climate shows warming.

Was that true during the LIA? No one knows there isnt sufficient data but PAGES 2k can say the there wasnt global surface warming.”

During the ice age scare, which was before global warming scare, it argued that some glaciers were advancing.
Whether enough were or not is beside the point, but what happens if more glacial mass is added, rather than staying about same or losing mass in the future?

Or what if sea level declines. Since beginning of 20th century sea levels have risen about 7 inches, what if sea levels lower by 1″ . Or instead rising 7 inches it becomes only 6″ rise since beginning of 20th century.

It seems possible that glaciers (globally) could add mass and/or sea levels would drop by an inch AND not have global air temperature decrease.
If that happens, would it count as global cooling.
Or if temperature lowers, but glacial ice and sea level remains about same, is that global cooling.

gbaikie says:During the ice age scare, which was before global warming scare….

There was no consensus on global cooling in the ’60s and ’70s. Unlike today, it was a time before satellites were routinely provide loads of observational data, and scientists were not very sure what was going on. A literature survey of that time found there was no cooling consensus:

In fact, by 1965 plenty of scientists had already been warning about global warming from the buildup of greenhouse gases, and by the late ’60s climate models were calculating the warming expected from CO2. List of some papers and reports here:

Do you really believe that Russian temperature records from, say, 1917-1950 are reliable?

You don’t really expect a sentient, rational person to believe that people were making accurate daily observations all over Russia during the Revolution or the Civil War or during the Sieges of Stalingrad and Leningrad?

Do you honestly believe that Chinese temperature records from, say, 1913-1980 are reliable?

Do you really expect anybody to believe that accurate daily temperatures were recorded in China during the Revolution or “The Great Leap Forward?”

Do you seriously believe that Sub-Saharan African temperatures from, say 1850-1975 are accurate?

Please don’t tell us you think accurate daily temperature recordings were made in Sub-Saharan Africa during any part of the 19th century and most of the 20th.

Do you really believe that oceanic temperatures from, say 1800-1970 are accurate? ( as we know, the oceans cover 70% of the earths surface).

Do you really believe there were accurate daily temperature observations made in the Bering Sea or the Weddell Sea or in the middle of the Pacific at any time before the advent of satellite observations in 1979?

Are you kidding me?

All this is even prior to considering the GISS homogenization adjustments or the adjustments made for the UHI effect.

These are measurement error and uncertainties in excess of the putative change in global temperatures.

The truth of the matter is that climate “science” has absolutely no idea whatsoever whether there has been warming or not.

I know one thing for sure; DA is a proselytizer not a scientist. He’s got a bench top lab experiment confused with the real world. On top of that, he’s substituted the imperfect computer-based model forecasts of a highly complex, possibly chaotic, non-linear system with empiricism.

You need to define what you mean by science community. Obviously you are referring to climate modelers who practice witchcraft rather than science. Real scientists like Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH, who deal with real data, must have serious misgivings about the chicanery going on with fudged adjustments to the record.

Gordon Robertson says:Real scientists like Roy Spencer and John Christy of UAH, who deal with real data, must have serious misgivings about the chicanery going on with fudged adjustments to the record.

They do? Where did you read that? That’d be an odd position for them to take, since their own adjustments (dishonest “fudging,” right?) are larger than those for the surface data.

Here in my neck of the woods in N Central Indiana.
Cloudy
Temp. 46 F (7.77 C) (Forecast high 52 F or 11.11 C)
North wind 14 mph gusting to 20 mph.
Forecast low is for a hard frost tonight 29 F (-1.66 C)
According to the Purdue University data base average temps for Anderson, IN this time of year are:
High 61 F (16.11 C)
Low 42 F (5.55 C)

tim…”there really was an exceptionally large drop in the GISTEMP of -0.55 C in years recently.

In turns out that this was preceded by the largest ever 2 year increase of +0.82C…”

*******

Gives credence to Mark Twain’s claim of three different kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Actually the increase in the late 1997 EN was nearly 8C which is larger than the 2016 rise from 2014 of 7C, according to UAH. It’s all happening in a brief span of 4 years which should not be the basis of a warming/cooling record claim.

I have argued that the 1998 EN ‘should’ have dropped back to the baseline or lower to be in step with what preceded it for 20 year. However, after a brief flurry below the baseline in 2000, it rebounded to +1.5C or so by 2002 and remained there on average till 2015.

I would like an explanation for that. There’s no way CO2 or GHGs could cause such abrupt change accompanied by a 13 year flat tend post 2002.

I don’t think anyone has any idea what has transpired the past 4 years, or where it is headed.

Gordon says: “Theres no way CO2 or GHGs could cause such abrupt change accompanied by a 13 year flat tend post 2002.”

The brief explanation is there are large random/chaotic fluctuations in the climate. CO2 produces a slow, fairly steady increase in temperatures. So for any short period (less than a decade or two), it is easy for the larger fluctuations to obscure the small upward slope.

tim…”So for any short period (less than a decade or two), it is easy for the larger fluctuations to obscure the small upward slope”.

I get that Tim, provided the slow warming increase is there. Trenberth expressed frustration in the Climategate emails because he could not find it.

The point is, no one can prove from the UAH record how much MIGHT be attributed to CO2 and how much is due to natural variation. My POV is that the 18 years flat trend shown by the IPCC plus UAH indicated it’s either not there or if it is, it’s imperceptible.

I’m going with Dalton and the Ideal Gas Law, used in a totally ballpark manner. I think the atmosphere represents a relatively constant volume although it likely expands and contracts from day to night. Dalton shows that the partial pressure of CO2 in the mix is based nearly on its percent mass. The IGL shows temperature proportional to pressure and the percent mass of CO2 is so small it could not possibly add significant warming to the atmosphere.

I think we’re going to have to go back and look at this problem from a different approach.

“The late 97 EN began at nearly -0.5C and peaked near +7.5C. “
Those numbers are too large by a factor of 10.
The late 97 EN began at nearly -0.05C and peaked near +0.75C.

“My POV is that the 18 years flat trend shown by the IPCC plus UAH indicated its either not there or if it is, its imperceptible. “

I will agree that until ~ 3 years ago the trend had been pretty flat for ~ 17 years (but only when you start right at the huge peak around 1998). But the last 3 years have shown renewal in the upward trend. To me, a casual glance at the entire record shows a pretty clear upward trend that is at least consistent with the sort of trend expected from CO2. Of course this is not proof of CO2 vs natural variation — but it is at least suggestive.

“The IGL [ideal gas law] shows temperature proportional to pressure”
Only when the volume is held strictly constant! And you already admitted volume is not constant. Consider that surface pressure would have been almost identical during the last ice age, but temperature would have been much different! The IGL is no predictor of temperature in the atmosphere! IN fact, a much better application is that pressure is constant, and that VOLUME changes in response to changes in temperature.

Didn’t I just recently ask you to stop just simply asserting this, as if it were a known, empirically established Truth, and rather start actually showing it, Tim?

As is the case for everyone and anyone, you don’t get to “theorize” your way to knowledge about the world. You have to observe that the things you CLAIM are happening ARE in fact happening, in the real Earth system.

How is it going with that whole thing, Tim? Are you working on it? Or are you still content with just saying “theory” or “physics”, and thereby, in your mind, you automatically know the outcome even without any observational tests?

IF
* everything else stays constant and
* the laws of physics continue to hold

THEN
* adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will lead to higher surface temperatures.

More CO2 further further reduces outgoing thermal IR, leading to more thermal energy retained at the surface. Certainly there are many, many other factors. There could be feedbacks that enhance or reduce CO2’s impact. There could be other factors larger than CO2. That doesn’t change the fact that CO2 itself provides a warming influence on the earth.

IF
* everything else stays constant and
* the laws of physics continue to hold

THEN
* adding more CO2 to the atmosphere will lead to higher surface temperatures.

Come off it, Tim! You really are a piece of work.

Yes, once more, this is how the THEORY is formulated. But you stated the following: “CO2 produces a slow, fairly steady increase in temperatures.” Which clearly suggests that you somehow possess the knowledge that this is MORE than just theory; that it is in fact empirical TRUTH, that it is in fact OBSERVED REALITY.

And now, as usual, whenever you’re caught out like this, you start your glossing over and your backpedalling. Until next time, when you will go right back and say the exact same thing, once again pretending as though the idea that more CO2 in the atmosphere WILL and MUST cause warming is an empirically established Truth.

“Phoebe has (humorously) shifted context. Rosss proof starts off relying on fossils in museums, books, and articles on evolutionary biology, and so on. But Phoebe moves him to a skeptical context in which if theres a hint of doubt about something any possibility that you might be wrong then you dont know it at all.”

Hahaha! You do of course understand that such a response makes YOU look bad, not me. My argument is clearly stated AND backed up by observational data. Yours is NOT.

The difference between the globe-earthers and CO2 warmists like yourself, Tim, is that the former have actually spent time amassing actual EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE to back up their claims, while the latter (including you) spend all their time claiming, asserting, assuming and speculating, and nothing else. Just telling, never showing. Not ONE SINGLE piece of empirical evidence from the real Earth system is ever presented to show that more CO2 in the atmosphere does in fact make the Earth warmer.

Roy…can’t make out if you banned g.e*r.a*n again. If so, I think you read too much into him baiting you.

He was polite, referring to you as Dr. Roy. I just call you Roy, not out of disrespect, I never call anyone doctor unless he has an MD behind his name and he has my life in his hands.

I wouldn’t even call the Queen of England ‘Your Majesty’, nor would I bow to her. I’d say, “how’s it goin’ sweetie”.

I did not find g.*r’s questions to be disrespectful or out of order. I’d like to engage you in a debate about the same questions and my fear is not about incurring your wrath or being banned. I am thinking of the bigger picture re UAH. I don’t want to drag one of the UAH principle scientists into a debate that could damage the integrity of UAH.

Please be a good guy and re-instate him. It’s not the same without his acerbic humour around here.

DA…”g* was a pure troll, obnoxious all the time, calling everyone by names, rarely replying to or discussing science.

This blog is by far a much better place with him gone. Again”.

*************

I’d rather see you gone than him.

He did not call me names, nor Mike Flynn, nor gbaikie, not J. Halp-less, nor ren. He was only ever insulting to uber-alarmists, who have been so arrogant, self-centred, and obnoxious here on Roy’s blog that I have taken to calling some of you idiots.

You have made far more serious allegations against Roy than g*r ever did. Several of the alarmists on this blog have been openly critical of Roy, in what I’d call a disrespectful manner. They are not here to discuss science, their MO is to discredit UAH, and that is the true definition of trolling.

Gordon, g* called almost everyone juvenile, childish names — me, Norman, Nate, barry, and anyone else here who dared to present science and who tried to discuss science. He was very disrespectful in a juvenile, trollish way.

He does not belong on this blog, or any other.

You have made far more serious allegations against Roy than g*r ever did.

Not so. You, Norman, Nate, Barry, and Binny, have made absolutely ridiculous claims in the name of science. I have always cited my sources or I have spoken from decades of experience in the electronics/electrical field as an engineer.

It was not till the likes of Norman and you called me a liar, without the decency of explaining your beef with me, that I countered with derogatory remarks at both of you.

All I have done is stick to steadfast definitions in science and challenged you lot to disprove them. I have used the 2nd law as a standard for heat and heat transfer, extensively quoting the founder of the law, Rudolf Clausius. I have challenged the modern concept that heat does not even exist, that it is only energy in motion.

Ironically, we already have a name for such energy, kinetic energy. And behold, Clausius defined heat as the kinetic energy of atoms in motion.

That has to be one of the dumbest assaults on science I have ever encountered. It suggests that heat is a transfer of some other form of energy, when the energy being transferred has to be thermal energy, better known as heat. How can heat be defined as a transfer of itself, or itself in motion?

I spoke with a Ph.D in physics the other day and I began to see the problem. Universities are run by paradigms, that is, they adopt a prevailing popular theory and stick with it even though the theory has long been proved incorrect. This guy was spouting dogma from a paradigm, completely unwilling to consider the opinions of learned scientists who disagreed with the paradigm.

I am serious about science, physics in particular, and I’ll be damned if I’ll listen to people who flame me for trying to present scientific reason. It so happens that I have decades of experience applying such theories, and when a poster who has only gleaned his understanding of physics from one or two textbooks calls me a liar and a fabricator, I call him an idiot.

That’s all g*r was doing. You alarmists gave him the basis for his comments and you spent hours defending yourselves to him. That suggests strongly that you all lacked the faith in your convictions.

svante…”I admire Dr. Spencer for tolerating criticism, even when hes right and the critic is wrong”.

I admire Roy’s seemingly infinite patience with what goes on in his blog. I admire him as a scientists and his accomplishment’s as such. However, I feel that a scientist should not pull rank and be willing to debate.

It surprised me that he banned g*r over the questions he was asking. In effect, he asked if Roy believed that back-radiation from the atmosphere could warm the surface and I think that’s a fair question that many high profile scientists need to answer with proof, including Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer. They have both eschewed the 2nd law of thermodynamics without explaining why.

Roy has taken a stab at an answer but his answer leaves me feeling perplexed as to his reasoning. It’s not enough to claim that GHGs slow down surface radiation especially when it contradicts the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. It also contradicts Dalton’s Law for a constant volume, wherein partial pressure of each gas contribute partial warming based on their percent mass.

Roy reasoned in an earlier article that one molecule surrounded by 2500 molecules of nitrogen and oxygen can warm the 2500 through collision. That contradicts Dalton’s law as well. There is no way to prove that because we cannot track molecules in a gas. Secondly, in the way we do track it, through examining partial pressures, and measuring how much a gas warms when a known quantity of gas is introduced, there is no way that a mass percent of CO2 at 0.04% could warm the whole gas significantly.

Craig Bohren, a physicist/meteorologist, who has written a book on atmospheric radiation, feels both views re backradiation and GHGs as a heat trapping blanket are nothing more than metaphors. I agree. There is no proof that GHGs in the atmosphere warmed by surface radiation can raise the surface temperature beyond what it is warmed by solar radiation.

If you have a law in thermodynamics that has withstood 150 years of scrutiny you cannot suddenly rule it out using analogies related to electromagnetic radiation. Gerlich and Tscheuschner, both of whom make their living in the field of thermodynamics, stated the obvious. The 2nd law is about heat and you cannot sum EM fluxes to satisfy heat transfer.

The 2nd law has to prevail with back radiation from a cooler atmosphere and I have seen no convincing evidence to contradict that fact.

Lindzen and Singer Are well aware that radiation carries energy. Therefore, the radiation emitted by the atmosphere, which you call back radiation, which you think has some magical properties other than real radiation, carries energy and iheats what it contacts unless it is reflected.

“Dr. Roy, are you now saying that matter, absorbing and emitting infrared, adds heat energy to the system?

**********
you know, this is the kind of behavior that got you banned in the first place. You try to trap me into agreeing to imprecise language, where you then decide what the language means *to you*. You know very well (or should know) that a temperature increase is either the result of (1) increasing energy input, or (2) reducing energy output.

********

I agree with Roy that the language from g*r is imprecise. However, Roy’s reply is imprecise when he claims “…a temperature increase is either the result of (1) increasing energy input, or (2) reducing energy output”.

In the context of the debate, the energy input is electromagnetic radiation as IR. However. the implication here is that ANY EM input must be absorbed and that’s not the case according to Bohr, who created the idea of the absorp-tion of EM by electrons in atoms. In conditions other than thermal equilibrium, the EM must meet stringent criteria to be absorbed. It must meet the requirements of E = hf, where E is the potential energy difference between atomic orbitals and f is the frequency of the electron’s angular momentum.

In other words, EM from a cooler source lacks the energy, E, required by the electron in a hotter object, to push it to a higher energy level. That satisfies the 2nd law whereas any absorp-tion by any EM does not.

Roy seems to think reducing energy output increases temperature in a body. That seems to be the basis of his notion that GHGs block the heat dissipation of a hotter body.

Reducing heat dissipation will certainly cause a body to warm provided the body had already been cooled from its ambient temperature through radiation or direct conduction/convection. However, if an electrically-heated device such as a power transistor, with a junction temperature of 150C, was subjected to a lowered heat dissipation, the transistor would never exceed its Tmax of 150C. It would burn up if that was attempted.

To me, that’s what we are dealing with when people claim back-radiation can warm the surface beyond the temperature it is heated by solar radiation. It is not possible for GHGs heated by a surface heated by solar energy to exceed the temperature induced by solar energy. That not only contradicts the 2nd law, it is perpetual motion.

Roy is using the other AGW principle equated to a heat trapping blanket. He has not explained how GHGs lower the heat dissipation of the surface yet Stefan Boltzmann make it clear how it happens.

According to S-B, the surface rate of heat dissipation is affected only by the temperature of the atmospheric layer immediately above it. That layer is comprised 99% of nitrogen and oxygen and those gases are heated directly by the surface. As the N2/O2 molecules are warmed they rise and cooler air rushes in that is cooler than the surface.

In other words Tcold is always lower than or equal to Thot, which is the surface temperature.

That is precisely how a real greenhouse warms. Solar energy heats the soil and foundation of the greenhouse and the heated soil heats N2/O2 directly. The molecules rise and the glass traps them. Richard Lindzen has claimed the surface would rise to 72C without the cooler air convection that replaces heated air when it rises.

That satisfies S-B.

I am here because I respect Roy as a scientist but I have been around long enough to get it that scientists are highly specialized in what they do. No scientist can possibly know everything about everything.

I would not dare to take Roy on in AMSU theory, on meteorology, on satellites orbits, or data acquisition. However, this stuff about the 2nd law fits right into my field and I have experienced much of this theory in practice. I know for a fact, having experienced the effect of radiation directly that it is highly over-rated at terrestrial temperatures as a means of heat dissipation.

If electrically-heated rooms relied on radiation to heat them we’d all be freezing. Baseboard heaters are surrounded by metal that blocks radiation. They have a louver on them that is adjustable to allow directly heated air to escape. Electrically-heated rooms warm by direct conduction/convection of air, and the WV and CO2 in the room has very little to do with the process.

You don’t get this, do you? Radiation ‘IS’ energy, in general, it is electromagnetic energy. Radiation does not carry energy, it is energy.

EM is NOT thermal energy, aka heat. Thermal energy is another form of energy and it is ALWAYS associated with atoms. In fact, it is emitted and absorbed by electrons in atoms. Atoms have no other means of absorbing or emitting EM.

In it’s relationship to atoms, heat must be converted from heat to EM before it can be radiated. Before it can be absorbed, it must meet strict criteria that satisfy the absorbing electrons needs. If the EM does not meet that criteria it is not absorbed.

I replied to you already that visible light cannot be absorbed by certain objects. Some is absorbed and some is rejected. That’s how we see objects in colour. We can only see the frequencies of EM rejected by a body.

Why are they rejected? Likely for the same reason EM in the IR spectrum is rejected when it lacks the energy intensity and frequency to be absorbed by electrons in certain atoms.

Your physics is still horrible. You have not taken even a moment to study real physics. You present your own made up version of reality. You provide so support for you absurd and terrible conclusions about energy, EMR, electron transitions.

It is really sad to keep seeing you will not even attempt to learn the real physics. You will soon only be posting to yourself to reinforce your horrid thought process. No person with even High School physics would accept you made up phony version of science.

You are a pseudoscientist. You make up all this crap and throw in some science words to make it sound legitimate. It is NOT at all legitimate. It is really bad physics. You are not an intelligent or logical person. Your made up versions are not good at all. Wish you would learn some real science. You would have much better arguments.

No one can convince your crackpot physics is wrong. Debate with you is not even remotely possible. You just keep making up your own stupid ideas and posting them ignoring how unscientific your ideas really are. Anyway not much to be done with your posts. You ignore completely real science and go about with your made up version. You have been doing this a long time and it is not possible for you to learn the real material.

This is why I call you an idiot. No one with training in science would make such a stupid remark.

You are telling me electrical energy is no different than mechanical energy, that an electric motor is driven by the same energy as a gasoline driven motor.

You are telling me that I can use mechanical energy to transmit information from an antenna, as in communication, or that I can use gravitational energy to cause chemicals to react in a lab.

Good grief, give your head a shake. It is little wonder you and your fellow climate alarmists are so confused.

No one knows what energy is and we know energy must be conserved, but several different types of energy have been identified. The word energy is a generic term that describes something that can do work. However, the means of doing the work requires energy in different forms.

The stumbling point for you alarmists is clear. You cannot understand the difference between electromagnetic energy and heat. Due to that error, you confuse the two, thinking any energy that contacts a body can cause it to warm.

It has been known since 1913 that electrons in matter can emit electromagnetic energy and the same electrons can absorb it. However, there were rules posited by Bohr and those rules have not changed.

It’s not that 95% of climate scientists agree that humans are causing warming it’s more like 95% don’t understand basic atomic theory. I was immersed in atomic theory decades ago as the basis of electronics and electrical theory. That’s why I am flabbergasted by some of the abject ignorance of atomic theory expressed by alarmists like you.

Heat is energy, Gordon. Of course energy can take different forms. One definition of energy is the ability to do work, and heat certainly satisfies that definition, as does EM radiation. Both must be considered when discussing energy transfer in the atmosphere.

But of course you know far more about it than all the climate scientists everywhere. Its a shame you arent writing papers to set them all straight; I doubt the Nobel committee reads many blog comments.

norman…”Your physics is still horrible. You have not taken even a moment to study real physics”.

When I passed my exams in physics, as well as in electronics, while studying engineering, I guess the profs or TAs marking my papers must have erred.

Norman, you are a first class bozo. For someone who confesses to be self-taught from physics text books you demonstrate an inability to comprehend anything you have read. Furthermore, you don’t have the background to distinguish pseudoscience from the real thing, so you are not qualified to judge me.

According to S-B, how is the surface rate of heat dissipation affected by the temperature of the atmospheric layer immediately above it.?

********

I have answered that several times, maybe you were snoozing.

It all comes down to temperature differential. In a solid, the rate of heat transfer depends on the temperature differential.

It’s the same in the atmosphere with radiation. S-B is stated as q = ebA(Thot^4 – Tcold^4) and there’s your temperature differential. There is nothing else in there can affect the rate of transfer.

In a vacuum, if Thot = Tcold, there is no transfer. As Thot gets hotter than Tcold, the rate of transfer increases as the temperature difference increases.

As surface air gets warmed by conduction, it rises due to convection. That allows cooler air to replace it, keeping T cold less than or equal to Thot. Therefore a one way flow of EM energy occurs.

We have to remember, that unlike what climate alarmists claim, heat is transferred to air by direct conduction, besides being radiated. According to Wood, circa 1909, radiation form the surface would be too weak to be effective more than a few feet above the surface.

I have invited anyone to test that for themselves. Fire up an electric stove ring and allow it to get red hot. Hold your hand over it real close but not touching (obviously). If you did touch the element you’d find out real quick how much more quickly heat is transferred to skin by direct conduction as opposed to radiation.

Now pull your hand back a couple of feet and there is no effect from radiation. That’s how quickly it dies off.

snape…” My question to you though, is why is this so? How does a temperature differential affect the rate of heat transfer? Could you explain this in your own words?”

That’s a good question and I am not replying as an expert, only someone who is interested and who has experience in electronics.

The following is a bit wordy but please bear with me. I feel it is better to understand a bit about how atoms interact, then the heat transfer makes sense. It may seem overly complex but it’s not. Don’t try to take it all in, just read through and allow it to sink in. I am not asking you to agree, just check it out then verify it on the Net.

Heat transfer comes down to atomic bonds in solids. No one knows what an atom looks like in reality but the Bohr model has sufficed for a century, even though it has been modified to allow for more complex atomic structures. Schrodinger, circa 1925, built on Bohr’s model of a nucleus with neutrons and protons, and electrons orbiting the nucleus like small planets.

The electron orbitals theorized, in which electrons allegedly orbit the atomic nucleus, are actually solutions to the wave equation, provided the electron has angular momentum and can be considered a harmonic oscillator. That’s what Schrodinger presumed and he was proved to be right for hydrogen. Later, with various modifications he was proved to be right for all atoms.

Enough of the hard theory, you get the picture that hydrogen has one electron orbiting one proton with no neutrons. The neutrons don’t matter for this description, just ignore them. As atoms get more complex, there are more protons/neutrons on the nucleus and and equal number of electrons orbiting as what there are protons on the nucleus.

However, the proton carries a positive charge while the much smaller electron carries an equal negative charge. In theory they should be attracted to each other, which they are, but in order to prevent the electron spiraling into the nucleus, Bohr stipulated that electrons must be confined to certain quantum energy levels that Schrodinger later defined mathematically using the wave equation.

That’s not so strange. The Moon is attracted to the Earth by gravitational force yet it keep merrily orbiting the planet due to its angular momentum.

So, atoms consist of layers of electrons with each layer (orbital) populated by a specific number of electrons. Conductors of electricity and heat have free electrons in their outer orbitals called valence electrons. Those electrons can be shared with other atoms to form bonds and the electrons take on orbital shapes that orbit around all atoms involved in paired atoms.

That is the basis of electrical current flow. If you apply a positive potential across a conductive device, free electrons in the device are drawn to the positive terminal and exit the negative terminal of the power supply producing the potential. In essence, electrons move from valence orbital to valence orbital through the conductor.

Electrons also carry a negative charge and that charge can move electron to electron as they move atom to atom. The charges can move at the speed of light whereas the electrons move more slowly.

When iron atoms bonds together in something like an iron rod, they form lattices of atoms bonded together by electrons. The protons in each nucleus repel protons in other nucleii but the orbiting electrons are attracted to the positive nucleii and bind them together as they orbit. The bonds are flexible and they tend to vibrate due to the repulsion of the nucleii and the attraction of the electrons.

At a certain temperature, the atoms vibrate at a certain frequency. As the temperature increases they begin to vibrate more. That vibration is kinetic energy and as you raise the temperature the kinetic energy of each atom rises. That KE is also thermal energy, as in heat.

If you apply a torch to one end of an iron rod, the thermal energy in the torch flame is transferred to the iron atoms and they begin to vibrate harder due to an increase in their KE. If you apply enough heat, the bonds will break and the metal will melt. The metal will also expand measurably as the bond lengths increase due to increased vibration at higher temperatures.

The heat received at one end creates a thermal energy potential difference between each section of the rod and heat actually flows down the rod to the cooler end from valence electron to valence electron just as electrical current flows. I find it seriously interesting from an electrical POV that heat flows in a conductor just like electrical current.

It’s the same with a gas at a heated surface. Heat will actually transfer from a hotter surface to molecules in a gas that touches that surface. The only difference between a molecule and an atom is that a molecule is two or more atoms bonded together by electrons. Molecules are nothing more than an aggregation of protons and electrons bonded together in different shapes.

It should be noted that radiation is not a requirement of heat transfer between a hotter surface and air. Heat will happily transfer to the nitrogen and oxygen atoms by contact. S-B does apply to radiation but it obviously does not account for all heat transferred to air. Therefore the temperature of the air surrounding a heated surface is dependent on direct conduction of heat to all molecules of air, not just to CO2 and WV.

You could remove all WV and CO2 from room air and heat would still transfer to air molecules of nitrogen, oxygen, and argon by contact just fine.

That’s what Wood claimed circa 1909 and he was an expert on IR. He could not see the atmosphere warming due to heat transfer by IR radiation. He thought the atmosphere heated by direct conduction and retained the heat due to air being a poor radiator.

Lindzen pretty well claims the same thing in his version of the GHE although it’s not clear to me whether he is referring to all molecules in air or just CO2/WV. He talks about heat rising in the Tropics and being transferred poleward and I cannot see that excluding nitrogen, oxygen, and argon.

Electrons in molecules are quite capable of transferring heat directly from a heated surface to a molecule like nitrogen or oxygen.

YOU: “When I passed my exams in physics, as well as in electronics, while studying engineering, I guess the profs or TAs marking my papers must have erred.

Norman, you are a first class bozo. For someone who confesses to be self-taught from physics text books you demonstrate an inability to comprehend anything you have read. Furthermore, you dont have the background to distinguish pseudoscience from the real thing, so you are not qualified to judge me.”

With the physics you profess now, you would FLUNK every test you took. I do easily understand the material presented in textbooks. I can easily judge your physics as delusional made up crap. I have linked you so many times to the REAL physics but you ignore it all because you like your own made up pseudoscience.

I am not at all a “bozo” I am trying to help you learn how bad your science is. Playing nice with you won’t help. Encouraging this awful material will only give you false sense that you think you know what you are talking about. You don’t know any physics and I start to disbelieve you took any actual classes in such a subject. One could not get things so bad if they had. You are just a pretender.

Suppose people share dimes at a rate proportional to their net worth. Richer equals more generous.

John, being wealthy, shares his dimes at a rate of 20 dimes/hour. Ted, who is much poorer, shares his dimes at a rate of 8 dimes/hour.

The two meet up and exchange dimes. Ted enjoys a net gain of 12 dimes/minute. This comes at the expense of the richer man, John, who suffers a net loss.

Notice, Gordon, the net exchange of dimes always flows from richer to poorer. And what would happen if two folks with the same net worth get together? They would exchange dimes at the same rate and net transfer would be zero. Monetary equilibrium.

****^^*****

A few hours has passed and Ted has become wealthier, sharing dimes at a rate of 9 dimes/hour. John of course has lost money, and now shares his at a rate of 19 dimes/hour.

The wealth disparity between the two men has decreased. Dimes are now “dissipating” from John at a slower rate, 10 dimes/minute instead of the original 12 dimes/minute.

One of these posts I will demonstrate to you why your hand pulled away from a burner example to try to demonstrate the inverse square law and limited radiant energy effects is very stupid. It will take math that you can’t understand or follow. I know when I spend time and do a derive something for you (like that there is quite enough CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all the surface IR in the 15 micron band) you never look at it and it is a big waste of time. Debating with you no anything is a big waste of time. You are not smart enough or have enough physics background to follow even simple ideas. You only accept your phony made up version of physics anyway regardless of all the evidence against it. Some people will read your terrible physics and try to help you. They will soon find out it is a hopeless waste of time.

norman…”One of these posts I will demonstrate to you why your hand pulled away from a burner example to try to demonstrate the inverse square law and limited radiant energy effects is very stupid.”

All you have to do is explain why a 1500 watt ring on a stove, when glowing red hot, will sear parbroil your finger if held close enough without touching the ring, yet a few inches away it does nothing.

Even though you protest and wave your arms you have no answer. I gave you one, the inverse square law. It applies in electronics communications at an antenna when a radar signal transmitted at 10,000 watts returns as an echo of only microwatts.

The difference is, the microwatt signal can be recovered and amplified several thousand times to a usable signal. There is nothing in space to amplify surface radiation when it peters out after a few feet.

When you try to supply an analogy for why electric charge jumps electron to electron in a conductor while the electrons move relatively slowly, or why heat can only be transferred from hot to cold, there are no real world analogies that help. A lot of this atomic level stuff makes no sense and when Bohr initially presented his theory on electrons and their interaction with EM, he was met with stiff resistance.

I appreciate your efforts to present an analogy but your efforts will only result in frustration. Alarmists have tried to present an analogy between EM fluxes and heat transfer via the 2nd law but none of them can explain why it SHOULD work. It plainly does not work. There is no such thing as a net balance of energies related to heat transfer.

We have had lengthy discussions over Rabbett’s green plate/blue plate and most of it tried to skirt around the 2nd law. Rabbett was told in a rebuttal to G&T under his real name, Halpern, that the 2nd law is about heat and that EM fluxes cannot be summed to satisfy heat transfer.

He still does not get it and carries on with inane thought experiments like the g/b plates, totally oblivious to the FACT that heat cannot be transferred from a colder plate to a warmer plate without compensation.

Rabbett’s thought experiment is an analogy of the surface interacting with the atmosphere. He still believes the 2nd law can be bypassed and that heat can be transferred from a colder atmosphere to a warmer surface that warmed it.

He has a Ph.D in physics for cripes sakes and he clearly does not understand the restrictions of the 2nd law as applied to heat transfer.

This is not simply my opinion. Rabbett was told that outright by G&T, who are both experts in thermodynamics. There are even textbooks written by mechanical engineers who are foggy on the concept. They present problems with alleged two way heat transfers between bodies but the bodies have no temperatures indicated. The problem presented is clearly at thermal equilibrium.

When it comes to presenting real world problems the said mechanical engineers nail it pretty good. For some reason, they insist on presenting highly theorized presentations of radiation without practical applications.

In the one book to which Norman linked, they made it very clear that radiation is only effective at very high temperatures, not at terrestrial temperatures. Wood agreed, and he was an expert in IR.

This notion of the surface cooling solely by radiation is utter tommy rot. When S-B put out their equation it was not aimed at atmospheric radiation. Boltzmann was trying to apply the entropy developed by Clausius to photons of EM through a statistical analysis, hence the notion of a photon cloud.

S-B seems to be a general statement about radiation density and not meant as a solution to a heat transfer problem. That has not stopped climate modelers and others from applying it liberally where it likely does not belong.

You put on a phony front that you want to debate issues. This is false. On other threads I explain in detail (you can go back and look at the posts) and you are gone. I wasted my time.

First you don’t understand energy at all or the 1st Law. I explained this in detail on a previous thread.

I think explaining things to you is a complete waste of time. You have your bad physics. You cling to it. It is bad but you can’t understand why, even when explained in detail why it is so bad. If you studied actual physics you would not post your nonsense and if confronted you would open a textbook to find why you are so incredibly wrong. Since you won’t do this I waste my time.

Anyway. Time is to waste. Nothing will be accomplished. You will ignore this post and continue with your horrible science, with just about every one of your posts. You will think you understand it but the rest of the scientific community gets it all wrong. You claim PhD physics know less on the topic than you. I read your posts and find you know so little real physics it is really sad.

Since I already know you make up most of what you post. barry, on the other thread, showed explicitly that you have no clue what Clausius said about radiant energy. barry quoted Clausius owns words and you tried to twist and distort it that it was about cooling systems. You were spreading complete falsehood. I did what a good researcher would. I read the original material and found you to be totally wrong and intentionally misleading. You are so obsessed to prove an idea wrong you destroy your credibility in the process and try to spread false and fake physics to the those that don’t know better.

Prove your statement with supporting evidence:
YOU: “In the one book to which Norman linked, they made it very clear that radiation is only effective at very high temperatures, not at terrestrial temperatures. Wood agreed, and he was an expert in IR.”

What proof do you have that Wood agreed radiation was only “effective” (whatever that means) and that he was an expert in IR?

You make up so much stuff with zero support that I don’t think anything you post is valid. Prove your claims or quit posting them.

Gordo, One thing about those early 20th century efforts by theoretical physicist is that they were constrained by experimental results. Your recent string of long winded rants for your deviant physics are just a way of ignoring the data which shows that you are wrong. Until you can provide something more than an appeal to authority, your rants are little more than twisted propaganda.

Gordon wrote:Thats what Wood claimed circa 1909 and he was an expert on IR. He could not see the atmosphere warming due to heat transfer by IR radiation. He thought the atmosphere heated by direct conduction and retained the heat due to air being a poor radiator.

For crying out loud — who cares what Wood thought in 1909??? Nobody. That was before quantum mechanics — which changed everything.

Gordon gets stuck on people who lived 100-150 years ago. That’s also apparently when Gordon’s education stopped, so he thinks science stopped then too. Because nobody knows anything if Gordon doesn’t know it.

DA…”But of course you know far more about it than all the climate scientists everywhere”.

I would not say everywhere but it does appear I am far better informed about heat transfer, radiation, and atomic physics than all the climate modelers, who you insist on portraying as all climate scientist.

Climate modelers are nothing better than hackers. They are all climate alarmists, and they program junk physics into their models to make them show catastrophic warming from a trace amount of CO2. They have spread the sci-fi that the planet’s surface cools only by radiation whereas radiation at terrestrial temperatures is a poor means of cooling anything.

It’s plain that catastrophic AGW is built upon an egregious misunderstanding of basic physics. The sad part is that all you alarmists eat this nonsense up, lacking the basic physics required to see the nonsense in it.

swannie…”Until you can provide something more than an appeal to authority, your rants are little more than twisted propaganda”.

Appeal to authority???

I laid out a long-winded explanation of atomic theory related to heat transfer that even you could verify on the Net were you not so immersed in your belief system. I have been applying this stuff for decades and I don’t need to ask anyone how to do electrical/electronics design or troubleshooting.

Gordon Robertson says:I would not say everywhere but it does appear I am far better informed about heat transfer, radiation, and atomic physics than all the climate modelers, who you insist on portraying as all climate scientist.

Gordon, are you familiar with the Dunning-Kruger effect?

You need to be.

“In the field of psychology, the DunningKruger effect is a cognitive bias wherein people of low ability have illusory superiority, mistakenly assessing their cognitive ability as greater than it is.”

Gordon Robertson says:The stumbling point for you alarmists is clear. You cannot understand the difference between electromagnetic energy and heat. Due to that error, you confuse the two, thinking any energy that contacts a body can cause it to warm.

Gordo, Yes, you pontificated at length about your understanding of the theoretical physics. But, your incessant rants do not provide any explanation for the observed heating of the Blue plate in either of my demonstrations. You claim that the IR EM from the Green plate is “ignored” when it meets the warmer Blue plate, which violates the First Law, as that EM energy must go somewhere, within the closed system. You are appealing to authority by referencing G&T’s paper, even though they didn’t provide anything in the form of experimental results to support their claims. Of course, you are ignoring all the scientific work which has been done since WW II, work which is founded on those old theoretical efforts you cite.

Have you tried it yet, with the plates starting together.. And then moving them slightly apart after steady temp reached?

You may hav emissed my earlier reply. Placing the two plates together so that conduction could equalize their temperatures would be identical to the heating of just the sinble Blue plate, except that the mass would be doubled and thus the time to reach equilibrium would also be doubled. Once the plates were separated, the Green plate would cool to equilibrium, instead of warming to that temperature as in my demo. The resulting change in the Blue plate temperature should be the same.

You won’t see write ups like that about Gavin Schmidt or Kevin Trenberth, who will be regarded as laughing stocks once the planet cools again.

I care what a lot of scientists from that era thought, like Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Schrodinger, Thompson, Boltzmann and Clausius. I even care what Arrhenius thought but not what he thought about global warming. He was a far more accomplished scientist than that.

And Prof. Wood showed how adding a glass plate on top of his rock salt plate warmed his experimental box. Just like Earth’s GHE does, offering a lab experiment to demonstrate how the larger world works. So you are right, Gordon, Prof. Wood demonstrated his expertise in IR energy.

DA – You keep referring to the press release for your evidence and I keep referring to the actual research papers (Part 1 and 2). Then you accuse me of lying, when in reality since I am quoting the authors of the research, you are calling them liars. Again I will quote from the research and not the press release…

Part 2 “ABSTRACT: The 100th meridian bisects the Great Plains of the United States and effectively divides the continent into more arid western and less arid eastern halves and is well expressed in terms of vegetation, land hydrology, crops, and the farm economy. Here, it is considered how this arid humid divide WILL change in intensity and location during the current century under rising greenhouse gases.” My emphasis on “WILL”, not has, not is, but WILL.

There is no mention of the divide being moved 140 miles east or to the 98th meridian. Authors were very careful in being clear in the conclusions. I suggest you look a Part 2 Figure 9. It shows the changes in farm economy will be more impacted in southern part, but even that is at most 2 degrees east over 60 years. Part 1 was simply a calibration/development of their model.

PLEASE STOP quoting the press release and quote from the research please! please! please!. This is getting boring. Look carefully at Figure 9 in Part 2 and tell me what you see. I see changes occurring over 80 years and mostly in the Southern portion of the divide.

I know you are a journalist and maybe you are protecting the author of the press release, but there is just no reference to the divide already shifting 140 miles in the research itself. Because if it had, then Figure 9 Part 2 would suggest that global warming will shift it back to the west in the next few decades.

As far as the press release from Columbia, I had no strong issues against it. There were errors in it but not major. The 98th meridian is only 120 miles away. I thought the title was spot on. The choice of sentence structure on the shift (the one you keep quoting over and over and over again) was poor and not clear. Thus you embraced it, while I went to the source to verify. And though, I even showed you an example of how it can be misunderstood (I am heading to Huntsville, some 120 miles away.) rather than perceive the subject of the sentence was the meridian, you chose it to be the shift. Again, just poor sentence structure in the press release.

You’re really off the mark on this argument. The press release blew it. For starters, it misrepresented precipitation trends, which have actually increased up and down the area in question. (Check out NOAA/climate at a glance).

Then there’s this:
“Data collected since about 1980 suggests that the statistical divide between humid and arid has now shifted closer to the 98th meridian, some 140 miles east.”

“some 140 miles east” is a qualifying clause that adds information to the main sentence. The journalist clearly believes the 100th and 98th meridian are 140 miles apart.

Your interpretation would be written something like this: “The divide has shifted some 140 miles east (main point), which is close to the 98th meridian (qualifying clause).”

BTW, the press release states that the divide is slowly moving eastward. If your interpretation is correct, and it has already progressed 140 miles, then that means the divide has recently been moving FARTHER AWAY from the 98th meridian.

Damn you’re stubborn. Here is the main point, the stand alone sentence:

Data collected since about 1980 suggests that the statistical divide between humid and arid has now shifted closer to the 98th meridian”

Next comes a clause which adds information to the main point, “some 140 miles east.

Is it telling us how far the divide has already moved or is it telling us (incorrectly) how far away the 98th meridian is?

If it has already moved 140 miles east, that claim should be supported in the research. From what I’ve read it’s not. What IS supported in the research is that the divide is moving CLOSER to the 98th meridian, not farther away as your interpretation would imply.

bilybob…”DA You keep referring to the press release for your evidence and I keep referring to the actual research papers (Part 1 and 2). Then you accuse me of lying…”

Ignore the troll. He represents uber-alarmists and he is only here to disrupt discussion. He fancies himself as a global warming journalist and he interviews uber-alarmists like Kevin Trenberth. He has no interest in interviewing those representing a more sane and skeptical view like Roy Spencer or John Christy of UAH.

Perhaps you have seen his recent reply to me in which he defends the hockey stick graph. It is dead and buried yet DA claims it is still in current IPCC literature. The IPCC could not distance themselves from it quickly enough once it was exposed as a junk study.

Here’s an article on the current hockey stick called the spaghetti graph. It explains how the blade was manufactured (fudged) after the proxy data began showing cooling.

If you look closely around the year 2000 you can see nothing even close to that on the UAH data.

I will stick with the science. I was willing to keep an open mind and see if you could refute the work of Seager et. al, but you don’t seem interested. For now, I will accept their (Seager et. al) opinion and leave you to yours. No need to continue this discussion, it has been beaten to death.

bilybob says:
“I was willing to keep an open mind and see if you could refute the work of Seager et. al, but you dont seem interested.”

Get off your high horse.

Neither you or I are in a position to refute Seager et al in blog comments.

I don’t think you understand what it is professional scientists do. They aren’t just making a spreadsheet on a Saturday afternoon, that you can refute on a Sunday afternoon. They have been thinking about this subject for months, in collaboration, and have access to data you and I don’t even know exists. They’ve been thinking carefully about the subject for months, if not years, and you or I don’t understand 10% about it that you do.

Given all this, your denial of their work looks silly and trivial and comical.

If you insist David, for the record I am the one that has brought in several quotes from the research that support Seagar et. al. findings. Where you regurgitate the same non scientific source in support of your own ideology.

I have tried to keep it cordial with some exceptions of course. Where every other post from you is either saying I am in denial or lying. Yet you have not shown where I am in denial (I have no problems with Seagar’s research) or I am lying (I have quoted directly from their research).

Now you are claiming that “I don’t understand 10% about it that I do”. I am not even sure what that means. You claim that both of us are not in a position to refute Seager, yet you continued to do so, while I have been trying to show support and have never denied their work the entire time.

There is a saying that those who can do, and those who can’t report on the others who are doing. I can see why you became a journalist. You have no ability to critically think, you have a lot of knowledge, but no wisdom to put it together.

I remember when you gave me a link on cost externalities of the oil/gas industry. The authors themselves warned that they did not do a benefit analysis and not to use the research for policy decisions. Yet you took a piece of the research that fit your ideology and ran with it. You don’t realize that economist actually look at the society benefit and try to maximize it. If anything, oil and gas should have their taxes reduced. You don’t realize the transportation industry has over a $1T externality cost, should the transportation industry be forced to pay. Who pays in the end? The poor in higher transportation costs, and if you had your way with oil and gas, in higher heating and food cost.

It is fairly clear from your “have you stopped beating your wife” like responses that you do not want to have an adult discussion. Try getting out of your ideology bubble once in a while, you may find the air refreshing.

bilybob….”If you insist David, for the record I am the one that has brought in several quotes from the research that support Seagar et. al. findings. Where you regurgitate the same non scientific source in support of your own ideology”.

That’s David Appell alright, butt-kisser to climate alarmists.

Not one word of science comes out of his mouth, it’s all rhetoric and dogma aimed at propping up the pseudo-science he represents.

DA…”How many times must the hockey stick be confirmed before its enough for you? Who has confirmed M&M?”

It has only been confirmed by friends of Michael Mann, like Gavin Schmidt.

M&M were confirmed by the statistician appointed along with NAS. They were also confirmed by NAS in part, although it was not the job of NAS to investigate the claims of M&M. NAS cut the 1000 years claimed by MBH in half and ruled out their proxy data for the 20th century. NAS fell just short of calling MBH idiotic.

…global warming (“good” no longer spend cold)… pouring pollutants greenhouse effect into the air is melting the poles. Besides on melting permafrost will liberate into the Atmosphere million Tm of methane with big greenhouse effect. This large amount of freshwater to the ocean could stop deep sea currents which depend on a delicate balance between fresh and salty water and temperatures, (ThermoHaline Circulation) vertical starting in polar areas from surface ↓↓ downwards and continuing go away slow and cold by the bottom loading nutrients and carrying large heat quantities. Deep sea currents move 90% of all the oceans water. Heat from the Sun reaches the equator and currents distribute it throughout the Planet, then…goodbye to our warm climate. The horizontal oceanic currents on surface produced by winds (move 10% of all the oceans water), rotating (Gyres) all by the Coriolis effect, and some others in all levels by the rotation of the Earth from West→East, like the Antarctic circumpolar current, will continue…but the vertical currents produced by the sinking of horizontal currents of dense salty water that reach the poles where the water is sweeter, less salty, and form cold bottom currents going heat transvasing among different latitudes would stop (why are the Grand Banks fishing in cold latitudes?…because over there is the POLAR ICE, freshwater, different sweet/salty density, salty dense water arriving and sinks in a little salty water environment…nutrients that are removed from the bottom cold water and rise to the surface, phytoplankton that feed on nutrients, zooplankton that feed on phytoplankton, fish that feed on zooplankton)… No polar ice over there will be no vertical currents…could reduce the rise of nutrients to the surface and therefore PHYTOPLANKTON SHORTAGE MAY DECREASING ITS VITAL CONTRIBUTION WITH OXYGEN TO THE ATMOSPHERE ~50%…fish…WINDS in some places of more warm latitudes carry far the surfaces hot water permitting the outcropping ↑↑ to surface of water with plankton and nutrients (the upwelling) from the bottom cold current coming from the pole, forming other Banks fishing (and other zones where phytoplankton oxygen produces), and returning by surface again like warm water toward the poles completing the THC circuit… Without polar ice the sea it could almost stratified into horizontal layers, less salty upwards…more salty downwards with little mixing, little energetic movement of water masses in vertical which is what removes fertilizer nutrients from the bottom cold water, and also produced the THC… Besides lowering salinity of the sea, for that great contribution with freshwater to melt the poles, will increase evaporation (ebullioscopy: the less salt has, more evaporates) producing gigantic storm clouds as have never seen, that together with changing of the ocean currents, could cool areas of the Planet causing a new ice age… Warming…invasion of tropical diseases carried by their transmitter agents, already without the “general Winter” containing them would fall upon the World like a plague…can produce a cooling, a new ice age, like living at the North Pole…and less oxygen in the Atmosphere… Is not known what will be worse… Go choosing.

China needs more water. So it’s building a rain-making network three times the size of Spain
Vast system of chambers on Tibetan plateau could send enough particles into the atmosphere to allow extensive clouds to form.
The system, which involves an enormous network of fuel-burning chambers installed high up on the Tibetan mountains, could increase rainfall in the region by up to 10 billion cubic metres a year – about 7 per cent of China’s total water consumption – according to researchers involved in the project.

I don’t think up to 10 billion tonnes is 7% of total water consumption of China.
US uses about 600 billion tonnes of water and I believe China uses more water. But anyhow would the “network of fuel-burning chambers” cause there to be less greenhouse gases as it would be removing up to 10 billion tonnes of water vapor from the atmosphere.

“Riding the heat wave: Sydney sets late-season temperature records”
Sydney has set record warmth for April as much of south-eastern Australia basks in conditions typical of mid-summer, with parts of the city reaching “severe” fire danger.
The bureau estimates that Australian temperatures have risen about a degree over the past century, an increase that is in line with the warming of the planet. Climate change increases the odds of heat records being set. Records for warmth have exceeded cold ones by about 12 to one in Australia since 2000, peer-reviewed research shows.https://www.smh.com.au/environment/weather/riding-the-heat-wave-sydney-sets-late-season-temperature-records-20180409-p4z8k6.html

Peru can be satisfied.
The Peruvian anchoveta (Engraulis ringens) is a species of fish of the anchovy family, Engraulidae, from the Southeast Pacific Ocean. It has yielded greater catches than any other single wild fish species in the world, with annual harvests varying between 4.2 and 8.3 million tonnes in 20082012. Almost all of the production is used for the fishmeal industry. The Peruvian anchoveta may be the world’s most abundant fish species.https://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/ocean/nino12.png

In engineering circles generally, if there is a feedback mechanism in the design, there is often but not always a reference element somewhere in the system to which the desired state (often = equilibrium state) is continually referred for correction of drift or deviation. In electronic circuits there might be a reference voltage across a resistor that is held constant for comparison purposes, to derive the amount of correction needed to effect the feedback.
In the case of climate feedback, has anyone ever identified if there is a principle involving a reference element? There are some hints here and there that such a device might exist in water phase changes, maybe an example being the ice growth/albedo change/ice melt/reverse albedo change/system response mechanism that has a lot of airing in general climate talk. Not saying it is THE reference element, merely asking if the concept is accepted and whether candidates have been put forward. Geoff.

“Entropic man says:
April 30, 2018 at 1:42 PM
There is a school of thought that Earths climate tends to settle into one of four states, which you might regard as reference temperatures.

Snowball Earth : Ice in both hemispheres. Glaciation to the tropics. Global average temperature 4C. ”

I have more doubt as compared to what wiki says about snowball earths.
“Most scientists today believe that a “hard” Snowball Earth, one completely covered by ice, is probably impossible. However, a “slushball earth”, with points of openings near the equator, is possible.

Recent studies may have again complicated the idea of a snowball earth. In October 2011, a team of French researchers announced that the carbon dioxide during the last speculated “snowball earth” may have been lower than originally stated, which provides a challenge in finding out how Earth was able to get out of its state and if it were a snowball or slushball. ”

Though I think having an average global temperature of 4 C is possible.
The average volume temperature of our ocean is 3.5 C, or if the entire ocean mixed/stirred so that the oceans had uniform temperature (and doesn’t require lose or gain of energy) then the average ocean surface temperature instead of being 17 C,
Would become 3.5 C. And that would lower the global average temperature to be lower than 4 C.

That is interesting, but if the day has no wind (very little wind, or only very slight breeze) the skin temperature of the ocean can get fairly warm and ground temperature could be somewhere around 30 C. But this also requires clear skies.
So if cloudy or windy (both or either is common) then air temperature will near freezing.

Can you explain how the RCMP cutter, the St. Roch, was able to sail through the Arctic Ocean from East to West in 87 days, circa 1944? It sailed straight through the Northwest Passage and out onto the Arctic Ocean before rounding Alaska and sailing south. Amundsen made it the other way circa 1906.

And, no, it was not an ice breaker. The skipper Henry Larsen, reported no sea ice blocking the route.

Arctic sea ice breaks up every years around April. The North Pole can become ice free by May or June. There is nothing unusual about that.

Even back in the 19th century (circa 1850), explorers from the UK were sailing through the first part of the NW Passage, right up the Lancaster Sound. One ship sailed several hundred miles along it and turned back when they spied land in the distance, thinking it was the end of the Sound. Turned out to be an island, and had they proceeded, they may have made it through south of the island.

Or, they may have been surrounded by ice as the winter approached and had their ships crushed and sunk.

There has been no significant change in Arctic sea ice during the Arctic winter for the simple reason there is little or no solar energy for several months.

ps. just noted that you specified 80 degrees latitude. The Lancaster Sound runs along 75 degree latitude so it’s a bit south of your area.

Still, if you read the adventures of explorers like Ranulph Fiennes, when they walked to the North Pole from the northern shores of Canada, it appears the North Pole ice can break up before the ice further south. I have read that is due to the way Arctic Ocean water circulations such as the Beaufort Gyre and Transpolar Drift operate.

geoff…”In engineering circles generally, if there is a feedback mechanism in the design, there is often but not always a reference element…”

***********

The first feedback to which you refer applies to servo systems. There is no amplification required to affect the feedback and a reference voltage is used to mark a set point such as the desired RPM for a motor.

A tachometer on the shaft sends back a feedback voltage which is compared to the ref voltage and an error is generated based on whether the motor RPM is too high or too low. The error voltage tells a controller whether to slow the motor or speed it up.

In electronics amplifiers there is no reference voltage. A voltage is fed back from the output to the input via a resistor, capacitor, or RC network and the sign of the f/b wrt to the input signal adds or subtracts to the input before it is amplified.

The key to this kind of feedback is amplification. Without gain, the feedback won’t work. However, this is the same kind of f/b claimed in the atmosphere as positive feedback and clearly there is no amplifier in the atmosphere.

Hanson’s tipping point theory, which is still perpetuated at NASA GISS by his successor, Gavin Schmidt, claims that feedback from GHGs in the atmosphere can warm the surface to temperatures beyond what the surface is warmed by solar energy. Such a super-heating is claimed to increase water vapour in the atmosphere and WV is the main GHG.

Such a positive feedback would theoretically cause a runaway greenhouse effect, but the theory is just plain wrong. As I pointed out, such positive feedback is not possible without the gain provided by an amplifier. The servo-type feedback does not apply here.

The glaring error in the theory, as I have tried to make clear, is that the theory contravenes the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Furthermore, it represents perpetual motion since the surface allegedly warms the GHGs via radiation and they re-circulating heat to warm the source.

Besides, the atmosphere cools with altitude and the 2nd law states clearly that heat cannot be transferred from a cooler source to a warmer target. Even if the surface is the same temperature as the atmosphere there can be no heat transfer. If the surface atmosphere is cooler than the surface there is definitely no transfer to the surface and as the atmosphere gets cooler with altitude there will definitely be no heat transfer.

The notion of a climate positive feedback is sci-fi. They have re-defined positive feedback to be a not so negative negative feedback and many climate scientists are not clear on that.

Gordon Robertson says:Hansons tipping point theory, which is still perpetuated at NASA GISS by his successor, Gavin Schmidt, claims that feedback from GHGs in the atmosphere can warm the surface to temperatures beyond what the surface is warmed by solar energy. Such a super-heating is claimed to increase water vapour in the atmosphere and WV is the main GHG. Such a positive feedback would theoretically cause a runaway greenhouse effect…

Yes. It’s about how much solar radiation a planet can handle before it causes a runaway greenhouse effect. We are not talking about solar radiation, we’re talking about radiation from trace gases in a cooler atmosphere.

BTW…Ingersoll was the one who claimed the surface temperature of Venus, as measured by one of the probes, was far too high to be explained by a runaway greenhouse effect. He claimed such an assumption contradicts the 2nd law.

By the same token, the assumption that back-radiation from trace gases located in a cooler region of the atmosphere can raise the surface temperature to a temperature higher than it is heated by solar energy, contradicts the 2nd law as well.

In all this discussion of CO2 adding heat, nobody has mentioned what heat. What is the temperature of the solar infrared radiation energy a single CO2 molecule absorbs and emits. As a starting point. Seems to me that if its line emission temperature is 373 K it would have proportionally more influence on temperature than if it were 323 K. Isnt there a formula for that and shouldnt it be a part of the calculation?

If I missed that in the discussion, I apologize. A word will send me packing.

“What is the temperature of the solar infrared radiation energy a single CO2 molecule absorbs and emits. As a starting point. Seems to me that if its line emission temperature is 373 K it would have proportionally more influence on temperature than if it were 323 K. Isnt there a formula for that and shouldnt it be a part of the calculation”

The temperature of gas is kinetic energy colliding molecules and if there a low density of gas, one can have a high velocity collisions and not have gas warming anything.

The space environment has no temperature, this vacuum has very low density gas which has very high velocity (about 500 km per second) and it is called solar wind. And solar wind travels beyond Pluto and does not warm things in space.

Gases in space can be excited by radiant energy and can said to have temperature related to how excited it gets. The sun’s corona is said to be very hot (million degrees) but corona does not heat, though it does glow. The part of the Sun which heat is denser surface of it’s atmosphere and is about 5000 K.

The Planck-Einstein relation in quantum mechanics states that a photons energy (E) is proportional to its frequency (v). The relation is expressed by a constant of proportionality (h or the Planck constant) and is written E = hv (Plancks constant times frequency).

Since frequency relates inversely to wavelength (λ), v may be written as the speed of light divided by peak wavelength, or c/λ. Wilhelm Wiens peak displacement law, also known as the Wien approximation, states that wavelength (λ) for each black-body frequency peaks at a maxi-mum, given by λ = b/T, with T in Kelvins and b the displacement constant (b ≈ 2900K) applied to the wavelength. Higher energy photons at higher frequency are at shorter wavelengths, so wave length relates inversely to temperature.

The Earth emits its highest energy IR photons, at 8-12μm wavelengths, directly through a window to space without interacting with any gases. To show the difference a few microns wavelength have on temperature, Wiens law shows that the 8μm photons exit the atmospheric window at 89C and 12μm photons exit at -31.7C, spanning a temperature drop of 120.7 Celsius degrees. By comparison, the catastrophic GHG, CO2, interacting with radiant energy at a peak 15μm wavelength (spread from 13.5 to 17 μm), emits photons at a -80C temperature. Minus 80 degrees Celsius.

It raises the question how a gas interacting with radiation at 80 degrees cooler than ice threatens to warm the atmosphere at all.

It raises the question how a gas interacting with radiation at 80 degrees cooler than ice threatens to warm the atmosphere at all”.

*********

Good point. One form of the CAGW theory claims radiation from those GHGs at -80C can warm the surface itself to a temperature greater than it is warmed by solar energy. I seriously question whether any of them have studied physics.

In his book on atmospheric radiation, physicist/ meteorologist Craig Bohren demonstrates what you claim. When he pointed an infrared measuring device at clear sky it showed -50C. When he pointed it at clouds it measured -3C. Either way, the 2nd law of thermodynamics makes it clear that HEAT cannot be transferred from a colder region like that to a warmer surface.

That’s especially true when CAGW claims radiation from the surface warms the GHGs. R. W. Wood, a physicist and expert on IR, claimed IR radiation from the surface would be ineffective more than a few feet above the surface due to the inverse square law.

As for GHGs at such temperatures warming the other gas molecules in their vicinity, it makes no sense that one CO2 molecule surrounded by 2500 molecules of nitrogen and oxygen, could have any warming effect on the N2/O2.

A gas mixed with other gases should be able to contribute no more warming than their mass percent. With CO2 at 0.04%, that amounts to no significant warming.

The article at the link you provide is shaky on the atomic theory portion. For that reason I have little confidence that the rest of their article is accurate.

They claim UV has the energy to raise an electron to a higher energy level but that longer wave IR only affects the vibration.

Vibration between atoms in a molecule is due to the electron bond and it can only increase when the electron absorbs a more intense form of EM. Therefore, the vibration to which they refer as being affected only by IR, is due to the electron absorbing IR.

It’s amazing how many scientists don’t understand that. They seem to think there is a separate mechanism in molecules that affects vibration. Even through collision, or rotation, the molecule can only receive and give off energy through its electrons.

In a collision, the positively charged nucleii do not collide since the repelling electrostatic forces between their positive charges force them apart. It is the electrons that collide.

They admit that EM is converted to heat by the electrons around the atom when the electrons jumps to a higher energy orbital. They also claim the EM can be immediately re-radiated at a lower frequency. They don’t explain why.

The notion that higher energy EM like UV can raise an electron to a higher orbital but not IR, is nonsense. There is NOTHING ELSE in the atom or molecule that can absorb IR and cause vibration other than electrons and if electrons absorb IR they must jump to a higher energy level. That means the same applies at IR energy levels as at UV energy levels.

I saw an explanation for that recently. It takes a lot of energy to move an electron from the ground state to the next highest energy orbital. Only energy from EM in the UV range can do that. However, with electrons at higher energy levels already, there is less energy required to move them to the next higher energy level, therefore the energy of IR is adequate to do that.

DA…”Gordon Robertson says:
Vibration between atoms in a molecule is due to the electron bond and it can only increase when the electron absorbs a more intense form of EM.

False.

Its the quantum state that absorbs the energy. It doesnt have to be an electron.”

************

You just don’t get what an ass you are making of yourself in front of informed readers.

Quantum states, as you put it, are based on electrons. Bohr defined the quantum states in 1913 and Schrodinger applied wave mechanics to the electron orbits defined by Bohr.

Are you so naive as to think quantum states exist as independent phenomena? Next you’ll be telling me atoms don’t exist, that they are nothing more than quantum definitions. If that’s the case, then what is it diffracting xrays in a gold left when xrays are shot through it?

Is that the crap they teach in school these days? These days we have a generation of idiots who believe gravity is not a force, that it is phenomenon related to space-time. Modern paradigms in quantum theory and relativity have mislead millions of students into believing there is nothing real, that everything we experience is based on mathematical constructs.

Let’s see any one of them walk through a brick wall.

No one can prove any of this, they cannot measure or visualize quantum theory. We have to take their word for it that an electron can exist in two places at once. Feynman, one of the most brilliant physicists of our time, claimed quantum theory works but no one understands why.

Yes, it works because Planck fluked a mathematical explanation for quantized energy in atomic structure. That does not mean the theory is correct, it just means the math works.

We know electrons are real, we can measure their mass and calculate their kinetic energy. I have been applying that theory for decades and I have been burned by the little blighters. Don’t tell me the tiny black holes burned through one of my fingers, when I got them across a relay contact, were caused by quantum entanglement.

Get real, man, come back to the planet. You are living in a dream world. Get back down here and observe reality, not some mathematical sci-fi.

Gordon Robertson says:I saw an explanation for that recently. It takes a lot of energy to move an electron from the ground state to the next highest energy orbital. Only energy from EM in the UV range can do that.

“The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system. It exchanges heat with a high-temperature bath by absorbing radiation from the photosphere of its star and with a cold bath by emitting IR into the essentially zero-temperature reservoir of space. It therefore reaches equilibrium at a temperature intermediate between the two.”

DA…”The planetary warming resulting from the greenhouse effect is consistent with the second law of thermodynamics because a planet is not a closed system”.

*********

I have always regarded Pierrehumbert as someone who has no idea what he’s talking about. The 2nd law has nothing to do with a closed or open system, it is about heat transfer and its limitations.

Not once, during his development of the 2nd law, did Clausius mention closed or open systems. A closed system is one that does not exchange mass or energy with it’s surroundings, so Pierrehumbert is claiming that only a heat transfer within a closed system can satisfy the 2nd law.

Claiming the 2nd law does not apply in an open system suggests Pierrehumbert needs to back and study real physics. His reasoning re the GHE makes him sound like someone with an anthropology degree.

A grade 6 student could tell you heat is transferred from the hotter Sun to the Earth and not the other way around, yet Pierrehumbert seems to think heat can be transferred from a cooler atmosphere to a warmer surface.

Clausius defined entropy in relation to the 2nd law and added that most processes in the universe are irreversible, therefore the universe is moving in a direction of breaking up. That means entropy applies to the universe in which the Earth is receiving energy from the Sun and radiating it to space.

That proves the 2nd applies to systems like the Sun – Earth – space systems and that Pierrehumbert is once again completely wrong.

Dont be an obscurantist! Just because you dont know the difference between heat, energy, temperature, or how they relate to each other, dont try to foist your ignorance and stupidity on people who might accidentally think that you know what you are talking about!

tom…”What is the temperature of the solar infrared radiation energy a single CO2 molecule absorbs and emits”.

Emitted electromagnetic energy in the infrared spectrum has no temperature. It’s not heat. It can have a colour temperature if it’s frequency is converted to the temperature of a heated metal, for example. However, since it is ‘infra’-red, you won’t be able to see it anyway, so a colour temperature would be a moot point.

The formula you might be referring to is E = hf. That energy refers to the potential energy between electron orbitals in an atom. If an electron at frequency f falls from a higher energy orbital to a lower orbital it emits a quanta of EM. The EM has energy E = hf.

Conversely, a quanta of energy must match the E = hf of an electron in an atom before the electron will jump to a higher level.

A CO2 molecule in the atmosphere does not absorb based on temperature since there is no heat is radiation. It responds only to E = hf.

Ultraviolet radiation is a high frequency, intense form of electromagnetic radiation. When it contacts the organic matter in your skin, electrons in the atoms of matter convert the UV to heat, and that burns your skin.

Heat is transferred indirectly by EM. At the solar surface, electrons convert solar heat to electromagnetic radiation with a broad spectrum of EM energies. When the Earth intercepts some of that EM, electrons in atoms in object on the planet, or the surface, absorb the EM and convert it to heat.

If you have a large boulder at the edge of a 1000 foot cliff and you push it off, the boulder will generate a lot of heat when it lands. The temperature of the boulder is not affected between the cliff face and the ground but the kinetic energy it carries as it falls is absorbed by atoms on the ground and converted to heat.

Again, heat is associated with atoms, with mass. It cannot be transferred through the air, or space, as heat unless the mass with which it is associated moves through the air as convective currents.

The Sun spits out raw electrons and protons as the solar wind. That would represent a transfer of heat in the electrons and protons. However, solar EM carries no heat.

YOU: “In the context of the debate, the energy input is electromagnetic radiation as IR. However. the implication here is that ANY EM input must be absorbed and thats not the case according to Bohr, who created the idea of the absorp-tion of EM by electrons in atoms. In conditions other than thermal equilibrium, the EM must meet stringent criteria to be absorbed. It must meet the requirements of E = hf, where E is the potential energy difference between atomic orbitals and f is the frequency of the electrons angular momentum.

In other words, EM from a cooler source lacks the energy, E, required by the electron in a hotter object, to push it to a higher energy level. That satisfies the 2nd law whereas any absorp-tion by any EM does not.”

This whole statement of nonsense is the proof you haven’t got even a remote clue of valid physics. Your made up version is so far off that no one here can even laugh at it, it is just sad.

Reality: First electron transitions do not produce MID-IR. Mid-IR is created by molecular vibrational states, from excited vibrational states to lower ones. You have not been able to understand that one at all and refuse to correct what you don’t know. But even if you wanted to use electron transitions you are still so far off.

For most atoms and molecules electrons only remain in an excited state an incredibly short time. That means the same atom could absorb and emit trillions of photons per second. Most molecules, at room temperature, are at ground zero vibrational states. The number of excited molecular vibrations in a hot object are not much different than in a cold object. Both have lots of available molecules in ground state that can absorb IR. You are just so wrong on so many things. You do peddle propaganda and misleading false physics and you do it on purpose even when other have wasted their time trying to correct you many, many errors.

A black body at absolute zero emits no photons of any frequency at all. You forgot about that case, didn’t you?

You go on to imply that the Earth is a black body because it emits photons. You are stupid if you do not appreciate that.

You may or may not choose to believe the following –

“Photon energy is solely a function of the photon’s wavelength. Other factors, such as the intensity of the radiation, do not affect photon energy. In other words, two photons of light with the same color and therefore, same frequency, will have the same photon energy, even if one was emitted from a wax candle and the other from the Sun.”

So here are a couple of questions for anybody who might agree with your nonsense –

If a blackbody emits a number of photons, say a thousand, and the possible photon frequencies are infinite, how would you establish the individual frequencies of the thousand photons emitted? You cant obviously, but that is what you are implying!

If two equivalent blackbodies have different temperatures, one at 100 K, and another at 1000 K, do they emit the same number of photons with corresponding frequencies? If so, how do you know that one body is at a higher temperature than the other? According to you, you cant.

You are just spouting nonsense. You just do not understand what you are talking about.

No GHE. Cooler bodies do not raise the temperature of hotter which do not possess a sufficient internal heat source. The Sun is an external heat source with respect to the Earth, not an internal one.

4:42pm: “If a blackbody emits a number of photons, say a thousand, and the possible photon frequencies are infinite, how would you establish the individual frequencies of the thousand photons emitted?”

With proper instrumentation. You cannot apply Planck Law to this scenario as your 1000 constituent particles vibrating and emitting your 1000 photons would mean your black body diameter is on the order of the wavelength of visible light which Planck ruled out from consideration. But Mike knew that as Mike accepts reality.

“No GHE. Cooler bodies do not raise the temperature of hotter which do not possess a sufficient internal heat source.”

Mike is just spouting nonsense. Mike just does not understand what Mike is talking about. Accept experimental reality Mike learn physics. Mike should feel free to be as upset about this as Mike wishes.

What in blue blazes are you talking about? A black body of infinite size at absolute zero emits precisely zero photons. What has the diameter of a black body to do with the wavelengths of emitted photons? A black body with a temperature of 5500 K may be the size of the Sun, or the size of a pinhead (or bigger or smaller).

Look at what David wrote. Learn to comprehend the English language.

Not even a good try.

Maybe you could provide a few facts to back up your stupidity and ignorance? I choose not to be upset at all. Nor offended, or annoyed.

Still no GHE. You cant even say where the GHE may be observed, what physical observations it explains, or how it may be demonstrated!

Blue blazes? I understand how upset you wish to be Mike. Calm down, do some cheery experiments. Instruments & patiently taking data can be soothing.

No object can achieve absolute zero not even BB radiation Mike; Mike Flynn has repeatedly defined the GHE right here on this blog; tests show Flynn’s definition is reasonably accurate as many physical observations explain how Mikes GHE is demonstrated.

Dr. Planck knew that the diameter of an object was important in dealing with physics of the wavelengths of incident photons not emitted photons so I understand Mike may also wish to be blue blazes upset about that correction but there it is. Cheer up Mike. We’re here to help you.

Good to know Mike is not annoyed or offended at being corrected so much of the time by actual observations & that Mike wants commenters to accept experimental reality & learn physics.

Perhaps Mike wishes to follow his own lead. Perhaps not. The jury doesn’t care. It just renders a verdict based on the facts & moves on to the next hard case.

You still can’t even define the GHE, can you, much less provide a testable GHE hypothesis?

In view of the fact that the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, you need to ensure that your GHE definition includes this fact, and also the fact that the surface cools at night, amongst a large number of other observations. Of course, neither you nor anybody else has managed to achieve this remarkable feat! I wonder why?

Because only the stupid, ignorant, and terminally gullible, would continue to believe in something that cannot be described, let alone reproduced! The same sorts of people who believe that they can predict the future by detailed analysis of the past!

Off you go, David – keep quoting my facts, or compose another silly gotcha, if you like.

If anyone had the faintest idea what you were talking about, they would probably be stupid and ignorant enough to believe in the amazingly undefinable GHE,

You don’t accept the concept of absolute zero, but you have no trouble accepting the concept of a black body, which just happens to be a theoretical concept as well! You couldn’t actually contradict anything I wrote, in specific terms, could you? Sounding sciency with vague mentions of Planck doesn’t help your cause. What specific wavelengths? What specific diameters? How would your statements relate to my questions?

You haven’t got a clue, have you?

Blather on. If you ever get round to finding a definition of the GHE, let everyone know. It will be a miracle! Believe your pseudoscience, if you prefer it to reality.

Mike Flynn 9:05pm: I know it upsets you to blue blazes that what is discussed here is beyond your understanding, as you confess you don’t have the faintest idea what we are talking about. Just calm down and regain your composure.

Note I wrote BB radiation which does exist & no real object can achieve absolute zero. You only pretend to not be upset about that nor offended, or annoyed that this specifically contradicts your comments. So be it, you are free to feel offended, annoyed, & upset, we don’t care, it’s irrelevant as: facts are facts.

As Mike Flynn has frequently written the GHE definition, it has been found right in Mike’s own comments so everyone here already knows. Mike should feel free to be as blue blazes upset about this fact as Mike wishes. The jury doesn’t care since facts are facts: sometimes it cools on clear sky nights, sometimes it warms on cloudy nights. No problem.

And sure, the Earth has cooled from four and a half billion years ago but the universe has cooled for even longer. Facts. Feel free to deny that all you want Mike, the jury has heard your story before and knows there is no wolf at the door despite your outcry to the contrary.

Carry on regardless Mike, you can be even more entertaining than the two-time loser recently departed; my, my, Mike has such big shoes to fill. But a little more unselfish work and Mike can get there.

DA…”Gordon also does not understand that a blackbody emits photons of ALL wavelengths, whatever its temperature”.

Wrong, a BB theoretically absorbs all wavelengths. It emits only wavelengths of lower wavelength. It’s similar to the Earth, it absorbs all wavelengths from the Sun and only emits a very narrow band of IR wavelengths.

When Planck et al inferred the highly theoretical BB, they drilled a virtual hole in the BB to allow ‘some’ EM to escape. That restricted the bandwidth.

norman…”Reality: First electron transitions do not produce MID-IR. Mid-IR is created by molecular vibrational states, from excited vibrational states to lower ones”.

Why do atoms/molecules vibrate? Two reasons. The positively charged protons in the nucleus repel other positively charged nucleii. The negatively charged electrons draw the nucleii together.

It’s a dynamic push-pull arrangement like a mass/spring system resulting in vibration. The rate of vibration is directly proportional to the kinetic energy in the system and that is largely due to the moving electrons.

When the electrons absorb energy, it affects the rate of vibration…it increases. If they absorb enough energy the bond will break, resulting in melting with metals and other substances. So, vibration is directly related to temperature and heat as well as to the energy of the electrons.

Who said electrons raised to a higher energy state remain there a very short period of time? When atoms are heated, all their electrons become excited and reside ABOVE ground state. That’s why EM from a cooler object cannot raise them any higher than their excited states provided their temperature is higher than the atoms from which the cooler EM was emitted.

That means that IR will be absorbed just the same as UV, resulting in electrons jumping to higher energy levels.

Norman…there is no other explantion. If you have one, please provide it.

Gordon Robertson says:Those are electrons orbiting the C and O atoms. They are always in motion.

More Gordon stupidity.

Electrons in an atom are’t in motion, Gordon. That’s something you picked up from the Bohr atom which isn’t true. You think electrons orbit the nucleus like planets around the Sun. Because you don’t understand quantum mechanics.

Movement of electrons in molecules: there’s plenty on the internet. For example:
(PhysOrg.com) — Physicists in Europe have successfully glimpsed the motion of electrons in molecules. The results are a major boon for the research world. Knowing how electrons move within molecules will facilitate observations and fuel our understanding of chemical reactions. Presented in the journal Nature, the study is supported via three EU-funded projects.
The physicists, led by Professor Marc Vrakking, Director of the Max Born Institute for Nonlinear Optics and Short Pulse Spectroscopy in Germany, used attosecond laser pulses to clinch this latest technical feat. Scientists were unable to observe this motion in the past because of the extreme speediness of electrons.
An attosecond is a billionth of a billionth of a second. Light covers a distance of less than 1 millionth of a millimetre during an attosecond. This is basically equal to the distance from one end of a small molecule to the other. By creating attosecond laser pulses, the scientists could snap ‘pictures’ of electrons’ movements within molecules.
For the purposes of this study, the physicists looked at the hydrogen molecule (H2) – with just two protons and two electrons, experts call H2 the ‘simplest molecule’. The team used their attosecond laser to determine how ionisation occurs within a hydrogen molecule. During ionisation, one electron is removed from the molecule while the energy status of the other electron changes.
‘In our experiment we were able to show for the first time that with the help of an attosecond laser we really have the ability to observe the movement of electrons in molecules,’ Professor Vrakking explained. ‘First we irradiated a hydrogen molecule with an attosecond laser pulse. This led to the removal of an electron from the molecule – the molecule was ionised. In addition, we split the molecule into two parts using an infrared laser beam, just like with a tiny pair of scissors,’ he added. ‘This allowed us to examine how the charge distributed itself between the two fragments – since one electron is missing, one fragment will be neutral and the other positively charged. We knew where the remaining electron could be found namely in the neutral part.’
For the last 30 years or so, scientists have been using femtosecond lasers to look at molecules and atoms. A femtosecond is one millionth of one billionth of a second, so it makes it 1,000 times slower than an attosecond. It is easy to track the movement of molecules and atoms when femtosecond lasers are used.
Scientists helped drive this technology forward by developing attosecond lasers, which are benefitting diverse studies in natural sciences including the study outlined here.
Commenting on the calculations and the complexity of the problem, co-author Dr Matthias Kling of the Max-Planck Institut fr Quantenoptik in Germany, said: ‘We found out that also doubly excited states, i.e. with excitation of both electrons of molecular hydrogen, can contribute to the observed dynamics.’
Professor Vrakking concluded: ‘We have not – as we originally expected – solved the problem. On the contrary, we have merely opened a door. But in fact this makes the entire project much more important and interesting.’
Explore further: Laser pulses control single electrons in complex molecules
More information: Sansone, G., et al. (2010) Electron localization following attosecond molecular photoionization. Nature, published online 10 June. DOI:10.1038/nature09084
Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-06-scientists-track-electrons-molecules.html#jCp

David Appell: ‘No, those are bonds’ – David, you know very well (hopefully – if not, have a look on the internet) that an oxygen atom has 6 electrons in its outer shell and that a carbon atom has 4 electrons in its outer shell. This is what Gordon has represented in his picture. Count the dashes which represent the electrons!
Gordon is describing exactly what his diagram means when he says that ‘oxygen shares two electrons with carbon on both sides of the carbon atom’.
Clearly he understands perfectly well the chemical bonding concept of the CO2 molecule.

If you think someone is wrong, why not provide some facts, rather than asking interminable witless gotchas?

Do you have a particular reason for appearing ignorant and stupid?

Where is your wonderful (yet strangely absent), testable GHE hypothesis? You don’t have one, so you thrash about attempting to obscure the obvious fact that you are preaching pseudoscience or religion – not real science.

Keep at it, David. There are still a large number of people gullible enough to believe in the non-existent GHE. Most are no doubt as stupid and ignorant as you. The others are merely deluded.

More of your completely made up opinions. You seem to have an endless amount of make believe twisted science.

HERE YOU FALSELY CLAIM without the slightest evidence to support your ludicrous claim: “Everything done by Bohr and Schrodinger, and a host of other eminent scientists.”

Find even a paragraph from these scientists who support your insane notion that wen atoms are heated all their electrons become excited above ground state. You completely made that up!! Why do you keep doing this. It is almost a sickness with you. You don’t have any real knowledge of science, you are not smart enough to understand the real stuff so you just make up stuff all the time! Why? Why are you so unhinged that you must live in a make believe reality and try to push into the world of the rational and sane?

Prove that you do not suffer from a delusionary psychotic mental condition.

You profess belief in a supposed effect that cannot be described or reproduced, and think that asking interminable gotchas will avoid the necessity of defining your core religious belief in scientific, rather than pseudoscientific terms.

Delusional, certainly. Psychotic? Can you provide evidence to the contrary?

I can’t help you when you falsely still believe electrons jump to higher energy levels when absorbing Mid-IR. As long as you believe this falsehood no explanation to you is possible. I have linked you to several places showing why Mid-IR can’t cause an electron to move to a higher energy level. You reject good sound empirical science in favor of your made up versions. The primary reason is Mid-IR is about a magnitude energy too low to cause even the lowest of electron “jumps”.

NOW YOU ASK: “Who said electrons raised to a higher energy state remain there a very short period of time? When atoms are heated, all their electrons become excited and reside ABOVE ground state. Thats why EM from a cooler object cannot raise them any higher than their excited states provided their temperature is higher than the atoms from which the cooler EM was emitted.”

Since you reject real and valid science, why do you pretend that you want to know? Your statement is totally false, misleading, unsupported and violates all known physics but you don’t care, you post it anyway. You really do not know any physics at all and should take some time to learn it. The stupid pseudoscience from the crackpots Claes Johnson and Joe Postma is why you are so wrong. You think these two goofballs understand physics. I have read their material. Both are very wrong in what they think.

In this example they start with a sample where all the population is in the excited state. It takes around 10 nanoseconds for all the population to go from an excited state to the ground state. There are many other examples all over the place in the real science world.

Your false and made up physics that all the electrons are in an excited state when you heat an object. You make that up based upon absolutely nothing and it goes completely against credible real science. If you want to have an intelligent debate on points you need to have good valid physics. If you make up your own, which can be so easily disproved, you have no credibility at all and your points have negative value. Using made up false science is worse than no science at all (then it is just an opinion…you pretend your points are valid science trying to fool people who don’t know better…that is a negative).

Please open and read this document. He calculates the number of atoms in an electron excited state at room temperature. The result is zero. He goes on to calculate the number of molecules in the excited state at 25 C room temperature. The result is one molecule per 20,000 is in the excited state at this temperature. I can’t help you if you don’t read this. If you read it you might be able to understand why people say you don’t know physics. Never too late to learn.

Nobel Prize physiology 2017 about circadian rhythms, but… 3D Bioprinting-Immortality (biological timers)… Forever young with modified Biological Timers… Which are the biological timers?, where are them? (genes, hypothalamus…), how functioning them? (ordering stop growth at finish of adolescence…ordering start to grow-old at beginning of adulthood), how can modify them (telomerase…) for maintenance the hormones production, enzymes, cellular regeneration…all Eternity at same level of the 18 years old?… Have to accelerate Research about Memory and the Spaces Colonization… Immortality comes…

The only problem seems to be that he cannot actually bring himself to produce this GHE definition. I am not surprised – it only exists in his fantasies.

He is the sort of person who claims that because bananas both absorb and emit infrared radiation, the Earth must have become hotter since its creation – maybe reaching the David Appell 760 000 K (or maybe Al Gores millions of degrees!)

Al Gores degrees seem to be more numerous than his marbles, of which more than a few appear to have gone missing.

The lads are lurching from crisis to catastrophe. If numbers of believers are a guide to truth, then astrology is far more to be believed than climatology – with good reason, no doubt.

At present, for all the blather, obfuscation, and puerile attempts at gotchas, there is still no testable GHE hypothesis. Just more pseudoscience, proclaimed ever more stridently by its shrinking band of followers. At least astrology seems to maintain its belief base – the central dogma of climatology seems to be under question in mainstream scientific journals. Possibly the effect of CO2 on surface temperatures will be noted as being progressively less and less, until it totally disappears as a matter of concern (and a source of research funding), and the second raters and pseudoscientific wannabes can move to a new and exciting pointless funding paradigm.

ren: An afterthought: ignore the thoroughly depressing news material which follows my link the article about the June 1975 snow in England.
Is it just the British media that prints nothing but the worst stories it can dredge up, I wonder?

You’re welcome ren – keep your posts coming. I’m pleased to have been able to supply some information of interest. Weather related phenomena are soon forgotten, except by those who were there at the time.
I heartily recommend a book by the late Robin Stirling, a meteorologist who wrote ‘The Weather of Britain’. It’s an excellent and fascinating historic account which covers past centuries right up to the modern era, written in a very easily read style. There are plenty of copies for sale on the internet.

“And sure, the Earth has cooled from four and a half billion years ago but the universe has cooled for even longer.

I cant figure what the relevance to the non-existent GHE is, but maybe some fellow traveller can explain it in English. Ball4 agrees that the supposed GHE was unable to stop not only the Earth from cooling, but also the universe – even more so, apparently! Maybe Ball4 does not accept that the Earth is part of the universe, or maybe that CO2 cannot heat the universe.

Still no GHE. Not in relation to the Earth, nor the universe. No heating at all – just remorseless cooling – even the universe! Oh well, not to worry. In the scheme of things, the possible heat death of the universe is not something that occupies my mind greatly. Ball4 may believe differently, I suppose.

Mike Flynn 11:20pm, 12:14am – I observe being forced to admit the universe has cooled even longer than Earth has driven Mike into pointless rants after admitting there is a GHE then claiming there is no GHE. This is to be fully expected from someone who openly admits he hasn’t the faintest idea what we are talking about 9:05pm.

Feel free to rant all you wish Mike, your amusing efforts will not change the facts. I will leave Mike upset as all blue blazes, annoyed disagreeing with even himself, and with a greatly unoccupied mind.

You should seek a refund for your mind reading course. It didn’t work. I’m not upset – why should I be?

The facts are that the Earth has cooled. There is no GHE – not even a useful description of such a bizarre proposition, is there? There are still ignorant and stupid people who claim that CO2 makes thermometers hotter! How silly is that? If the Earth has cooled for four and a half billion years, what would possibly allow you to think that the cooling has stopped, and then reversed into heating?

Still no evidence of warming?!! How about this:
“From California to Alaska, its been a weirdly warm winter.”
If its cold where you are right now, chances are youre in the eastern U.S. which is practically the only place on Earth thats significantly cooler than normal at the moment.
Contrast that with the West Coast, which has been stuck in unusually warm weather all month long.

In California, it still feels like summertime. Los Angeles has experienced bone-dry winds and occasional highs in the 80s, the perfect conditions for wildfire. The Thomas Fire, the largest wildfire in California history, burned more than 280,000 acres this month.

Climate scientist Daniel Swain attributes the cold in the east and the warmth out west to a continent-wide weather pattern similar to the one that ushered in Californias megadrought a few years ago. Theres evidence that shrinking Arctic ice is making extreme patterns like this more likely.

Speaking of shrinking ice, December has been downright balmy in Alaska. Frozen rivers the highways of the North during winter still havent frozen. The sea ice is in shockingly bad condition for native hunters.

Why are you talking about weather? Have you decided to define the GHE in terms of weather?

Dont you understand the difference between weather and climate, or have you finally realised that climate is merely the average of past weather over an arbitrary period?

Oh well, anybody who refers to a “climate scientist is obviously a few sandwiches short of a picnic. Keep believing in pseudoscience. It will give you solace, as the population in general realises that the money wasted on so-called climate science has produced precisely nothing of value to civilisation (apart from some humour provided by those balding, bearded, bumbling buffoons, the Climate Clowns)!

The Earth has cooled since its creation – no energy balance over the longest period we have. More energy out than in. That is why it has cooled. Too complicated for climate scientists to understand, but there you are.

The Earth has cooled since its creation no energy balance over the longest period we have. More energy out than in. That is why it has cooled. Too complicated for climate scientists to understand, but there you are.

As you point out (probably without realising how ignorant and stupid your inadvertent statement of truth makes you look), the fact that the Earth is still emitting heat from its surface shows it is still cooling ie., losing internal energy.

Unless, along with the impossible and non-defined GHE, you now insist there is a perfect insulator of magical origin surrounding what you define as the interior.

You insist the Earth should cool quickly. Lord Kelvin shared your view, and he insisted to his death bed, that the Earth could not be more than 20 million years old. Wrong, wrong, wrong. He wasnt stupid, but he was certainly ignorant off the Earths vast radiogenic heat source.

You, on the other hand, cannot claim such an excuse for your ignorance.

The Earth has cooled. Keep believing it isnt if you wish. Real scientists wont care what you think, neither will Nature. Newtons Law of Cooling will no doubt continue to apply, whether it suits you or not.

Off you go now, and tell yourself what a wonderful example of womanhood you are, if it keeps you happy.

Myki: An American relative came to visit us here in the UK in mid-March. Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, we were treated to live pictures of thick snow on the ground at his home in Lake Tahoe.
I’d say that such conditions don’t qualify as being ‘weirdly warm’, and the reality is a complete contrast to the media release you quote which says ‘In California, it still feels like summertime. Los Angeles has experienced bone-dry winds and occasional highs in the 80s, the perfect conditions for wildfire. The Thomas Fire, the largest wildfire in California history, burned more than 280,000 acres this month.’
I think that you should have less faith in media reports, and do some more historical research of your own using for example public records. Research the weather of California for the last 100 years for example, and then decide if the recent weather really has been ‘weirdly warm’ – whatever that’s supposed to mean!

But from time to time this information suffers from a lack of retrospect on the past. This recent comment is a typical example.

ren says:
April 27, 2018 at 1:11 PM

Folks in Ohio are not able to start planting.
Folks in Nebraska are not able to start planting.
Folks in Illinois are not able to start planting.
Folks in North Dakota are not able to start planting.
Folks in South Dakota are not able to start planting.
None of Iowas farmland is ready for planting.

Let us have a closer look at NOAA’s GHCN V4 daily record for Iowa (we could have chosen any other US state in ren’s list).

Here is a chart showing, for the period 1893-2018, a monthly average of the daily TMIN (temperature minima) anomalies in Iowa wrt the mean of 1981-2010:

binny…”It is not about the weather, but about the invisible effect of CO2 on the temperature.

What do you mean here, ren?”

********

Ren has a wry sense of humour.

You ask why the CO2 effects on temperature should be visible year to year? Is that not obvious? CO2 is alleged to increase each year and CO2 is alleged to warm the atmosphere. Why should it’s effects not be visible year to year. Why did the IPCC report 15 years with no warming? Why, with the addition of the UAH series has it increased to 18 years?

With the UAH series dropping slowly from a high in February 2016 to the 1998 – 2015 average, how is that indicative of CO2 warming?

The point is binny, we’re supposed to be headed for catastrophic global warming yet here we have the past winter setting records for cold weather. Even in early May, temperatures are well below the norm.

Go back to being La Pangolina, your feminine persona suits you better.

I told you I would waste my time explaining why your hand does not burn as you move away from a red hot burner plate.

If you have a burner plate 20 cm wide it will have a radius of 10 cm.

The area of a sphere is 4(pi)r^2.

The burner plate has 1500 Watts of energy pumped into it to maintain its temperature.

As you move away from the burner plate the IR becomes isotropic (same in all directions) so the flux will become the amount of energy (1500 joules/sec) passing through an area. As you move out the same amount of energy passes through a much larger area so the flux continues to drop.

My hand is around 180 cm^2. If you hold your hand 10 cm above the burner plate the 1500 watts will move through an area equal to the size of a sphere with radius 10 cm. This area is 1257 cm^2. My hand will receive 180/1257 of this 1500 watts, which comes out to 215 watts. Now your hand does not change in size but the area of the sphere does so as you move your hand away it covers less and less of the surface area of the expanding sphere that the IR will uniformly spread through.

Now if you move your hand 20 cm above the plate (about 8 inches) this is how the radiant energy drops. Area of the sphere at 20 cm equal 5026 cm^2. My hand is still 180 so it will now receive 180/5026 of the 1500 watts or 54 watts.

If you move it 40 cm (around 16 inches) above the area of the sphere the isotropic IR moves through now it 20,106 cm^2.
Again the hand is not growing larger so it will receive 180/20106 of the 1500 watts or 13 watts or 16 times less energy than when you had your hand 10 cm away.

See how it works.

Now for your really stupid and illogical thought process you think any emitting object, regardless of size will lose energy at the same rate because of your really sick and demented understanding of a very simple Inverse Square Law. I can’t even guess where you came up with that one. Even Claes Johnson and Joe Postma would not be this far away from reality. I think you made this one up all by yourself based upon some really stupid thought process. Sad to the max.

So you think you could stand a couple feet away from a large house fire and be similar to if you stood a few feet away from a small wood fire? Wood burns at the same temperature. Your ideas are insanely stupid and you believe you don’t have any problems understanding science but the entire community of scientists (who still do lots of experiments and collect empirical data) gets it all wrong. You need help pal and lots of it.

You are a great phony! I have posted countless times to you the definition of GHE. You are too slow to understand physics so it is an incredible waste of time trying to communicate even simple science ideas to you. Sorry you are just not smart enough to be able to understand scientific concepts. I like to waste less time with you than the other irrational skeptic.

Gordon Robertson is making up false physics so I am motivated to stop his insult to the entire science body of hard working dedicated people who work hard to gather good data and information and he just takes giant dumps on all of it! He insults every time he posts.

You do not have this character flaw. You are just very slow and have little learning ability. You can’t process things clearly presented you and you repeat yourself endlessly like a computer program loop.

norman…”As you move away from the burner plate the IR becomes isotropic (same in all directions) so the flux will become the amount of energy (1500 joules/sec) passing through an area. As you move out the same amount of energy passes through a much larger area so the flux continues to drop”.

Very good, norman, you have discovered the inverse square law.

******

“you think any emitting object, regardless of size will lose energy at the same rate”

yes, norman, it’s called the inverse square law, applies equally to all radiative energy sources no matter the area.

********

“So you think you could stand a couple feet away from a large house fire and be similar to if you stood a few feet away from a small wood fire?”

Hell, no, norman, it depends on the intensity of the source. If you stand in front of a super-intense source like the Sun on a hot summer’s day unprotected, you’ll get burned. It’s 93,000,000 miles away.

Now consider relative intensities. You have a 1500 watt stove ring that cannot be felt at 5 feet. What effect would you expect from the Earth’s surface at 5 feet which is alleged to radiate 380 w/m^2?

The 1500 watt ring could not warm an appreciable sized room by radiation so how should we be expected to accept that a square meter surface radiating 380 watts could warm GHGs at more than 10 feet?

Better still, how could GHGs at 100 feet in a cooler atmosphere warm atoms in the surface? The surface is far more dense atom for atom than the atmosphere yet you expect 0.04% of the atmosphere to put even a dent in the warming of the surface? Especially after heat transferred from the surface warmed the GHGs.

All that is provided the 2nd law does not exist, but it does.

Even if air molecules next to the surface are in equilibrium with the surface, no net heat will be transferred. Those molecules cannot get warmer than the surface, only cooler with altitude.

More alarmist obfuscation. What does your reply have to do with the fact that the radiation of a 1500 watt source cannot be felt a few feet away. Same for the planet’s surface, the radiation is ineffective more than a few feet from the surface.

The sad thing is you think this is some type of valid or rational thought. It is really sad to see you so far gone in some delusional denial land.

YOU: “The 1500 watt ring could not warm an appreciable sized room by radiation so how should we be expected to accept that a square meter surface radiating 380 watts could warm GHGs at more than 10 feet?”

Maybe you have zero understanding that the Earth’s surface is a gigantic radiator. It is putting out around 1.99 x 10^17 Watts total. This energy will not disappear in 5 feet above the surface.

You might actually need to study geometry so you understand how area works. At this time you are so lost you don’t even understand the most basic high school geometry or how to calculate area.

I can waste more time explaining it to you. You are not smart enough to understand what I explain. You need to study more.

Now if you increase the radius by 10 meters you increase the area to
510,066,073,117,988 m^2

That means each meter of Earth, in 10 meters, would expand
510,066,073,117,988/ 510,064,471,909,788 = 1.00000313 times

The area of the meter on from the ground to 10 meters would now be 1.00000313 m^2 The radiant drop from the ground emitted 390 W/m^2 would have reduced to 389.99877 W.

Not much drop at all. With our GHG atmosphere you would not have this energy since the GHG would absorb lots of it. If you had no atmosphere this is what you would read at 10 meters away from the surface. It is really basic geometry.

You have to double the radius of the Earth to drop the radiant energy of 390 W/m^2 to 97.5 W/m^2 flux.

It is as simple as taking the Earth’s total energy output and seeing what area this energy must pass through to get a flux. Not even hard math (except for you it seems to be).

1st Law of Thermodynamics. Energy is not created nor destroyed. The Earth emits an enormous amount of radiant energy.

norman…”Maybe you have zero understanding that the Earths surface is a gigantic radiator”.

Oh, I got that. Maybe you alarmists could keep in mind that the giant surface is bazillions of atoms radiating independently from their electrons. Now take the radiation from those bazillion atoms and divide them by the number of CO2 molecules in the atmosphere and I’ll bet CO2 cannot absorb more than a fraction of a percent of surface radiation.

Also, see the surface as bazillions of point sources, which it is. The radiation from each point sources fizzles out in a few feet.

I did a nice detailed calculation showing you that there is plenty of CO2 in the atmosphere to absorb all the IR radiating at the 15 micron wavelength. You ignored the information. I will not repeat it here. Only you need to realize that the surface is radiating from a depth of only a few microns and that is all the active number of molecules that radiates from the Earth’s surface. The atmosphere is millions of microns thick. It does not help to explain this simple idea to you. You can’t process it. You just are not smart enough to be able to figure it out. Sorry I can’t help you.

Then why are you constantly trying to convince him!? I’m really curious about this. Why aren’t you just ignoring him? At this point you SHOULD know that nothing you say will ever convince him he’s wrong and you’re right. So what is the point arguing with him at all …!?

Same with poster ‘M Flynn’ and his co2-between-heat-source-and-object-won’t-heat-object stupidity. Same with posters ‘g*’ and ‘J Halp-less’ and their moon-isn’t-rotating nonsense.

kristian…”Then why are you constantly trying to convince him!? Im really curious about this. Why arent you just ignoring him? At this point you SHOULD know that nothing you say will ever convince him hes wrong and youre right. So what is the point arguing with him at all !?”

***********

Kristian, I have stayed away from you out of respect since I considered we were basically on the same side. Your reply here reveals you as being as much an idiot as the alarmists who post here.

I have seen holes in your theories I could drive a truck through and I have refrained out of respect for the fact that we basically agree on AGW.

If you think I’m wrong, then try refuting what I’m saying using science. Based on some of the theories you have posted I’ll venture you can’t. I recall posting once that heat is the kinetic energy of atoms, and you disagreed.

I agree with you completely on trend lines and statistics, that one must examine the data to see what it means. I agree with you for the most part on other POVs you have expressed.

It does not serve us well as skeptics when we start taking shots at each other. If you disagree with me, reply politely and I will respond in kind. If you think norman is right then you have no understanding of basic physics.

As far as Mike is concerned, he keeps asking the same question over and over and no one can answer it. No one has even come close. Therefore he is justified in responding with the same question as long as alarmist idiots keep spreading their dogma and pseudo-science.

YOU: “What do you think? Is the 2nd law wrong? Was Bohr wrong? And please don’t offer up that nonsense about a net balance of energies. That’s an alarmist obfuscation to ge.t around the science that reveals the holes in their theories.”

NO the 2nd Law is not wrong. You are wrong just about everything. You claim you studied some physics. This is a totally false claim. You can’t even comprehend the simple Inverse Square Law.

Bohr was not wrong, just not complete in his understanding.

You do not comprehend the 2nd Law at all.

I am formally taught in Chemistry but can read and understand science material. The difference between us is that I understand and use real valid, experimentally tested physics. You just make things up, all the time, nearly every post. Big difference. Also you are not a very intelligent person, that is why you make up simplified versions of reality. The actual material is too difficult for you to grasp. You simplified and incorrect versions are what you are able to grasp.

What do you call that example I gave you with the 1500 watt stove ring? One of your problems, normie, is that you cannot equate theory to reality.

That’s what my career has been largely about, applying the theory. I don’t need a formula to experience the inverse square law, I demonstrated it to you with the way radiation drops off rapidly from the 1500 watt stove ring.

********

“I am formally taught in Chemistry…”

Then why do you have so much trouble understanding basic atomic structure, that molecules are made of protons and electrons bonded together by the electrons? Why do you have so much trouble with electrons absorbing IR as opposed to UV?

If electrons could not absorb and emit IR, there would be no electromagnetic spectrum as we know it. The spectrum would fall off to the IR region then disappear.

I learned all this stuff over again in an organic chemistry class after studying it in electronics. We went right into naming atomic orbitals (s,p,d,f) and how they are related to electrons. In fact, we had to draw the shapes of organic molecules where the bonds between the atoms were known to be electrons.

It was Linus Pauling who converted Schrodingers equation for hydrogen into the more complex molecular shapes.

We should not be going at each other like this, I find no pleasure in it. Here’s a quick primer if it interests you. Even if it appears as Greek, stick with it as it will give you the quantum theory behind electron orbitals.

This is a major difference between Bohr and Schrodinger. Bohr provided the simple electron orbiting the nucleus with certain restrictions. After Schroddy applied the wave equation to Bohr’s model, they came up with quantum numbers. Schroddy’s version represents the changes since Bohr, which tried to account for elliptical and more complex orbitals as opposed to Bohr’s circular orbitals.

You can see on the video that each quantum level from the nucleus out is divided into ever increasing sub-orbitals from s through f.

If you don’t know that you could not pass the chemistry exams I took. You need to know about the electron structure of atoms and molecules to form bonds of various types and even to write equations.

If you knew all that you’d have no problem understanding what I’m saying.

**********

“Bohr was not wrong, just not complete in his understanding”.

Which part was incomplete? I know his basic model required fine tuning for atoms beyond hydrogen but that has all been ironed out with his basic model and theory still intact.

Whatever Bohr suggested re atomic emission and absorp-tion has basically been found to be accurate. Close enough for the arguments I have put forward based on his theory.

**********

” You just make things up…”

Then everything I was taught at university is just made up. Everything Clausius uttered, or Bohr, or Newton, was just made up.

The thing I find so peculiar about you is that you seem to have never heard of any of this stuff.

kristian…”Im not posting here to be part of a team. Misguided science is always misguided science. Sceptic or no sceptic”.

I agree with you on that but we are dealing with a load of eco-weenies passing off terrible science that will affect a lot of people who cannot defend themselves.

I have never been a team player in my life, eschewing agreement when it was not warranted. I have been pretty much a loner, and not because I am anti-social. I can be gregarious and sociable when it fits.

I am not asking anyone to agree with me. If you see anything wrong in my reasoning, your input would be welcome. If you can demonstrate clearly that I’m wrong, I won’t sulk and try to counter you with bs.

What I am finding, however, is a chasm between science as I learned it and a modern thinking that has redefined established science for no good reason. One example is the notion that heat is not real and is merely a mode of energy transfer. Modern science in some universities has gone so far as to claim gravity is not a force, it’s a space-time anomaly.

That is total bs and it has to be called.

The hole in the heat as a mode of transfer definition is glaring. What energy is being transferred when heat is involved? Is it not thermal energy? Heat? What would it be…electrical, chemical, mechanical, gravitational…???

It has to be a specific energy and generic energy is inadequate. So the modern definition is that heat is now defined as energy in transit, where the transferred energy is thermal energy.

Sounds like double-speak to me, maybe political-correctness.

You and I disagreed on the definition of heat as the kinetic energy of atoms. Besides what I learned in electronics, that is the exact definition given by Clausius. It’s the only definition that makes sense and you will find it as the definition of heat in many places on the Net.

If you have been taught a different definition then I challenge you to challenge what you were taught. I challenge myself continuously, especially on this blog. I do not block out what the opposition claims, I go thoroughly through what is being claimed and make sure I am clear on it.

There is a danger in thinking you KNOW something. There is always something to learn and I have found it is sometimes major. I may talk like I KNOW what I’m talking about but I am very aware of the limitations of human thought, especially my own. I sometimes talk like that out of habit to challenge a response.

You have suggested you KNOW I’m wrong and I face that every day from the denizens of this blog. Yet no one has offered consistent and all-encompassing proof.

I may be totally wrong on what I’m talking about but I am looking for clear proof that I am wrong. I am not stubborn in that sense I just have not received convincing evidence that I can research. What I usually get is what you just claimed, that I am wrong. Sorry, that is not scientific proof it’s an opinion.

I’ve had people argue that thermal energy is not heat and that’s when I have rolled my eyes and said, “gimme a break”!!!

Some have argued it is kinetic energy being transferred which is even dumber. KE is a generic energy referring to ANY energy in motion, as opposed to potential energy which is energy waiting to happen. KE does not tell you what kind of energy is in motion and that has to be inferred from the context.

I agree with you on most things although maybe not exactly. What you claim is close enough for me and I don’t want to get into a pissing contest where it does not apply. I am not here to argue or to win, I am here in the hope that good science will come out of the discussions. Also that AGW will be proved wrong and put to rest.

That is very good advice and I wonder why I do try to convince Gordon. I was ignoring g* but he kept jumping in on all my posts. I asked him to quit but he never did so I started working to convince him again.

norman…”That is very good advice and I wonder why I do try to convince Gordon”.

God grief, Kristian receives the kiss of death from norman.

Norman, you reply to me because you have no confidence in your science, nor should you. One of the first things you should learn as a neophyte in science is to have a bit of humility. You should learn to discuss rather than sermonize as you do.

You admit to being self taught from reading text books on thermodynamics, yet you have the temerity to lecture me and call me a liar, someone who has actually studied this as part of an electrical engineering program at university and who has applied the theories for decades.

In one of the texts to which you linked, they made it clear early in chapter 1 that radiation is ineffective at normal temperatures, that it is significant only at very high temperatures.

The same text offered up pseudo-scientific examples of two way EM transfer in which they failed to attach temperatures to the bodies involved. All they showed in the examples was two plates between which EM was allegedly transferred both ways. They should have made it clear that such a two way transfer can happen only at thermal equilibrium.

If you had studied a formal engineering course, you would have learned that they spoon feed beginners generalizations to get them started. They withhold facts that are not introduced till later so as not to confuse the neophyte. I don’t agree with the practice but it was obvious to me that the example on two way radiative transfer to which you cling was one of those simplified examples used in beginner’s texts that have no practical application.

I am afraid you were sucked in by a bad example in the text. EM cannot be transferred in two directions between bodies of different temperature. Either that, or the 2nd law does not apply and Bohr was wrong with his presumption that absor-bed EM must meet a very specific criterion.

What do you think? Is the 2nd law wrong? Was Bohr wrong? And please don’t offer up that nonsense about a net balance of energies. That’s an alarmist obfuscation to ge.t around the science that reveals the holes in their theories.

Youre wrong, Gordon. Energy is transferred from the Sun to Earth, and Earth to Sun. (Do you think the latter does a U-turn when it gets there?) You stubbornly refuse to learn the 2LoT, and make the same mistakes again and again. On purpose.

norman…”This video makes it clear and easy to understand with actual lab equipment (no computers graphics in 1962) to see what is meant by molecular vibrations”.

******

It’s not clear at all. He showed to oppositely charged spheres with a spring between them between capacitor plates that had a varying electrical field. He inferred the molecule has a little spring in it that vibrates according to EM it encounters. Total bs.

That spring ‘IS’ ELECTRONS orbiting the atoms. That’s how molecules are formed from two or more atoms, with the electrons orbiting both atoms and providing a negative charge that works against the positive charges of the atomic nucleii to produce vibration.

In order to change the vibration frequency, the electrons must either give up energy or absorb more energy.

BTW…this vibration applies in solids as well. Even though the atoms are bonded together in a lattice by electrons or the charges they create, the atoms vibrate due to the interaction of +ve and -ve charges. If you heat the solid enough, bonds will break, but before they do, they will vibrate faster and faster as the temperature rises.

Alternately, if you cool the material down toward absolute zero, the vibrations will lower in frequency till they stop vibrating altogether. The vibrations represents internal energy both as work and heat.

He pointed out that the vibration increases at resonant frequencies but does not change at frequencies outside the resonant bandwidth.

I pointed out the applicable equation, E = hf. The f in the EM must match the f of the electron and that corresponds to the Es matching. He has just proved to you that absorbed EM must match the frequency of the electrons and the potential difference it must overcome between orbitals, E, in order for the EM to be absorbed.

1) electrons dont orbit the atom, or the nucleus
2) you are ignoring the changes in molecular states due to rotation and vibration of the molecule components themselves, which do not involve electrons jumping to another energy state. Again, quantum mechanics.